Skip to main content

Full text of "The Department of State bulletin"

See other formats






"; v/ ."- '■ ■■■:;*■■'■:■■ 








Volume LXXI 

No. 1841 

October 7, 1974 

Address by President Ford Before the U.N. General Assembly U65 

Address by Deputy Secretary Ingersoll U73 

Address by Assistant Secretary Enders U77 



Statement by Under Secretary Sisco Before Subcommittees 

of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs U8U 



For index see inside back cover 


H0V1 M974 



Vol. LXXI, No. 1841 
October 7, 1974 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


52 issues plus semiannual indexes, 

domestic $29.80, foreign $37.25 

Single copy 60 cents 

Use of funds for printing this publication 

approved by the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (January 29, 1971). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 

copyrighted and items contained herein may be 

reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 

appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 

the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, provides the public and 
interested agencies of the government 
with information on developments in 
the field of U.S. foreign relations and 
on the work of the Department and 
the Foreign Service. 
The BULLETIN includes selected 
press releases on foreign policy, issued 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements, addresses, 
and news conferences of the President 
and the Secretary of State and other 
officers of the Department, as well as 
special articles on various phases of 
international affairs and the functions 
of the Department. Information is 
included concerning treaties and inter- 
national agreements to which the 
United States is or may become a 
party and on treaties of general inter- 
national interest. 

Publications of the Department of 
State, United Nations documents, and 
legislative material in the field of 
international relations are also listed. 


ho mi- irza 



A Framework of International Cooperation 

Address by President Ford 

In 1946 President Harry Truman wel- 
comed representatives of 55 nations to the 
first General Assembly of the United Na- 
tions. Since then, every American President 
has had the great honor of addressing this 
Assembly. Today, with pleasure and humil- 
ity, I take my turn in welcoming you, the 
distinguished representatives of 138 nations. 

When I took office, I told the American 
people that my remarks would be "just a lit- 
tle straight talk among friends." Straight 
talk is what I propose here today in the first 
of my addresses to the representatives of the 

Next week Secretary of State Henry Kis- 
singer will present in specifics the overall 
principles which I will outline in my remarks 
today. It should be emphatically understood 
that the Secretary of State has my full sup- 
port and the unquestioned backing of the 
American people. 

As a party leader in the Congress of the 
United States, as Vice President, and now as 
President of the United States of America, I 
have had the closest working relationship 
with Secretary of State Kissinger. I have 
supported and will continue to endorse his 
many efforts as Secretary of State and in our 
National Security Council system to build a 
world of peace. 

Since the United Nations was founded, the 
world has experienced conflicts and threats 
to peace. But we have avoided the greatest 
danger: another world war. Today we have 

1 Made before the 29th United Nations General As- 
sembly on Sept. 18 (text from Weekly Compilation 
of Presidential Documents dated Sept. 23). 

the opportunity to make the remainder of 
this century an era of peace and cooperation 
and economic well-being. 

The harsh hostilities which once held great 
powers in their rigid grasp have now begun 
to moderate. Many of the crises which dom- 
inated past General Assemblies are fortu- 
nately behind us. Technological progress 
holds out the hope that one day all men can 
achieve a decent life. 

Nations too often have had no choice but 
to be either hammer or anvil — to strike or to 
be struck. Now we have a new opportunity — 
to forge, in concert with others, a frame- 
work of international cooperation. That is 
the course the United States has chosen for 

On behalf of the American people, I renew 
these basic pledges to you today : 

— We are committed to a pursuit of a more 
peaceful, stable, and cooperative world. 
While we are determined never to be bested 
in a test of strength, we will devote our 
strength to what is best. And in the nuclear 
era, there is no rational alternative to ac- 
cords of mutual restraint between the United 
States and the Soviet Union, two nations 
which have the power to destroy mankind. 

— We will bolster our partnerships with 
traditional friends in Europe, Asia, and Latin 
America to meet new challenges in a rapidly 
changing world. The maintenance of such re- 
lationships underpins rather than undercuts 
the search for peace. 

— We will seek out, we will expand our re- 
lations with old adversaries. For example, 
our new rapport with the People's Republic 

October 7, 1974 


of China best serves the purposes of each na- 
tion and the interests of the entire world. 

— We will strive to heal old wounds re- 
opened in recent conflicts in Cyprus, the Mid- 
dle East, and in Indochina. Peace cannot be 
imposed from without, but we will do what- 
ever is within our capacity to help achieve it. 

— We rededicate ourselves to the search 
for justice, equality, and freedom. Recent de- 
velopments in Africa signal the welcome end 
of colonialism. Behavior appropriate to an 
era of dependence must give way to the new 
responsibilities of an era of interdependence. 

No single nation, no single group of na- 
tions, no single organization, can meet all of 
the challenges before the community of na- 
tions. We must act in concert. Progress to- 
ward a better world must come through co- 
operative efforts across the whole range of 
bilateral and multilateral relations. 

America's revolutionary birth and centu- 
ries of experience in adjusting democratic 
government to changing conditions have 
made Americans practical as well as idealis- 
tic. As idealists, we are proud of our role in 
the founding of the United Nations and in 
supporting its many accomplishments. As 
practical people, we are sometimes impatient 
at what we see as shortcomings. 

In my 25 years as a member of the Con- 
gress of the United States, I learned two ba- 
sic practical lessons : 

— First, men of differing political persua- 
sions can find common ground for coopera- 
tion. We need not agree on all issues in order 
to agree on most. Differences of principle, of 
purpose, of perspective, will not disappear. 
But neither will our mutual problems disap- 
pear unless we are determined to find mu- 
tually helpful solutions. 

— Second, a majority must take into ac- 
count the proper interest of a minority if the 
decisions of the majority are to be accepted. 
We who believe in and live by majority rule 
must always be alert to the danger of the 
"tyranny of the majority." Majority rule 
thrives on the habits of accommodation, mod- 
eration, and consideration of the interests of 

A very stark reality has tempered Amer- 
ica's actions for decades — and must now tem- 
per the actions of all nations. Prevention of 
full-scale warfare in the nuclear age has be- 
come everybody's responsibility. Today's re- 
gional conflict must not become tomorrow's 
world disaster. We must assure by every 
means at our disposal that local crises are 
quickly contained and resolved. 

The challenge before the United States 
[Nations] is very clear. This organization can 
place the weight of the world community on 
the side of world peace. And this organization 
can provide impartial forces to maintain the 

And at this point, I wish to pay tribute on 
behalf of the American people to the 37 
members of the U.N. peacekeeping forces 
who have given their lives in the Middle East 
and in Cyprus in the past 10 months, and I 
convey our deepest sympathies to their loved 

Let the quality of our response measure up 
to the magnitude of the challenge that we 
face. I pledge to you that America will con- 
tinue to be constructive, innovative, and re- 
sponsive to the work of this great body. 

The nations in this hall are united by a 
deep concern for peace. We are united as 
well by our desire to insure a better life for 
all people. 

Today the economy of the world is under 
unprecedented stress. We need new ap- 
proaches to international cooperation to re- 
spond effectively to the problems that we 
face. Developing and developed countries, 
market and nonmarket countries — we are all 
a part of one interdependent economic sys- 

The food and oil crises demonstrate the ex- 
tent of our interdependence. Many develop- 
ing nations need the food surplus of a few 
developed nations. And many industrialized 
nations need the oil production of a few de- 
veloping nations. 

Energy is required to produce food, and 
food to produce energy — and both to provide 
a decent life for everyone. The problems of 
food and energy can be resolved on the basis 
of cooperation — or can, I should say, [be] 


Department of State Bulletin 

made unmanageable on the basis of confron- 
tation. Runaway inflation, propelled by food 
and oil price increases, is an early warning 
signal to all of us. 

Let us not delude ourselves. Failure to co- 
operate on oil and food and inflation could 
spell disaster for every nation represented in 
this room. The United Nations must not and 
need not allow this to occur. A global strat- 
egy for food and energy is urgently required. 

The United States believes four principles 
should guide a global approach : 

— First, all nations must substantially in- 
crease production. Just to maintain the pres- 
ent standards of living the world must al- 
most double its output of food and energy to 
match the expected increase in the world's 
population by the end of this century. To 
meet aspirations for a better life, production 
will have to expand at a significantly faster 
rate than population growth. 

— Second, all nations must seek to achieve 
a level of prices which not only provides an 
incentive to producers but which consumers 
can afford. It should now be clear that the 
developed nations are not the only countries 
which demand and receive an adequate re- 
turn for their goods. But it should also be 
clear that by confronting consumers with 
production restrictions, artificial pricing, and 
the prospect of ultimate bankruptcy, pro- 
ducers will eventually become the victims of 
their own actions. 

— Third, all nations must avoid the abuse 
of man's fundamental needs for the sake of 
narrow national or bloc advantage. The at- 
tempt by any nation to use one commodity 
for political purposes will inevitably tempt 
other countries to use their commodities for 
their own purposes. 

— Fourth, the nations of the world must 
assure that the poorest among us are not 
overwhelmed by rising prices of the imports 
necessary for their survival. The traditional 
aid donors and the increasingly wealthy oil 
producers must join in this effort. 

The United States recognizes the special 
responsibility we bear as the world's largest 
producer of food. That is why Secretary of 

State Kissinger proposed from this very po- 
dium last year a World Food Conference to 
define a globai food policy. And that is one 
reason why we have removed domestic re- 
strictions on food productions in the United 
States. It has not been our policy to use food 
as a political weapon, despite the oil embargo 
and recent oil price and production decisions. 

It would be tempting for the United States 
— beset by inflation and soaring energy 
prices — to turn a deaf ear to external appeals 
for food assistance or to respond with in- 
ternal appeals for export controls. But how- 
ever difficult our own economic situation, we 
recognize that the plight of others is worse. 

Americans have always responded to hu- 
man emergencies in the past. And we re- 
spond again here today. 

In response to Secretary General [of the 
United Nations Kurt] Waldheim's appeal and 
to help meet the long-term challenge in food, 
I reiterate: 

— To help developing nations realize their 
aspirations to grow more of their own food, 
the United States will substantially increase 
its assistance to agricultural production pro- 
grams in other countries. 

— Next, to insure that the survival of mil- 
lions of our fellow men does not depend upon 
the vagaries of weather, the United States is 
prepared to join in a worldwide effort to ne- 
gotiate, establish, and maintain an interna- 
tional system of food reserves. This system 
will work best if each nation is made respon- 
sible for managing the reserves that it will 
have available. 

— Finally, to make certain that the more 
immediate needs for food are met this year, 
the United States will not only maintain the 
amount it spends for food shipments to na- 
tions in need, but it will increase this amount 
this year. 

Thus, the United States is striving to help 
define and help contribute to a cooperative 
global policy to meet man's immediate and 
long-term need for food. We will set forth 
our comprehensive proposals at the World 
Food Conference in November. 

Now is the time for oil producers to define 

October 7, 1974 


their conception of a global policy on energy 
to meet the growing need — and to do this 
without imposing unacceptable burdens on 
the international monetary and trade system. 

A world of economic confrontation cannot 
be a world of political cooperation. If we fail 
to satisfy man's fundamental needs for en- 
ergy and food, we face a threat not just to 
our aspirations for a better life for all our 
peoples but to our hopes for a more stable 
and a more peaceful world. By working to- 
gether to overcome our common problems, 
mankind can turn from fear toward hope. 

From the time of the founding of the 
United Nations, America volunteered to help 
nations in need, frequently as the main bene- 
factor. We were able to do it. We were glad 
to do it. But as new economic forces alter and 
reshape today's complex world, no nation can 
be expected to feed all the world's hungry 
peoples. Fortunately, however, many nations 
are increasingly able to help. And I call on 
them to join with us as truly united nations 
in the struggle to provide more food at lower 
prices for the hungry and, in general, a bet- 
ter life for the needy of this world. 

America will continue to do more than its 
share. But there are realistic limits to our 
capacities. There is no limit, however, to our 
determination to act in concert with other 
nations to fulfill the vision of the United Na- 
tions Charter: to save succeeding genera- 
tions from the scourge of war and to pro- 
mote social progress and better standards, 
better standards of life in a larger freedom. 

Members of U.S. Delegation 
to IAEA Conference Confirmed 

The Senate on September 16 confirmed the 
nomination of Dixy Lee Ray to be the Rep- 
resentative of the United States to the 18th 
session of the General Conference of the 
International Atomic Energy Agency. 

The nominations of John A. Erlewine, 
Abraham S. Friedman, Dwight J. Porter, 
and Gerald F. Tape to be Alternate Repre- 
sentatives were also confirmed that day. 

Prime Minister Rabin of Israel 
Visits Washington 

Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of the State 
of Israel made an official visit to Washington 
September 10-13. Following is an exchange 
of remarks between President Ford and 
Prime Minister Rabin at a welcoming cere- 
mony on the South Lawn of the White House 
on September 10, together with their ex- 
change of toasts at a dinner at the White 
House on September 12. 


Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents dated Sept. 16 

President Ford 

Mr. Prime Minister and Mrs. Rabin: It 
is a very real pleasure for me to have the 
opportunity of welcoming both of you to the 
United States. 

You are returning as the leader of a great 
country. You are returning to meet many 
of your friends over the years that you knew 
so well during your service here as Ambassa- 
dor to the United States. 

I trust that you and Mrs. Rabin will thor- 
oughly enjoy this visit back to the United 

The United States, Mr. Prime Minister, 
has been proud of its association with the 
State of Israel. We shall continue to stand 
with Israel. We are committed to Israel's 
survival and security. 

The United States for a quarter of a cen- 
tury has had an excellent relationship with 
the State of Israel. We have cooperated in 
many, many fields — in your security, in the 
well-being of the Middle East, and in leading 
what we all hope is a lasting peace through- 
out the world. 

Many of our people have a close personal 
relationship and association with your citi- 
zens, your fellow citizens in Israel, and we 
hope and trust that this relationship will 
grow and expand. 

Over the last few months, there has been 
movement in the Middle East for a lasting 
and durable peace. Israel has cooperated; 


Department of State Bulletin 

Israel has been helpful. And we hope and 
trust that in the months ahead the founda- 
tion which has been laid will be built upon. 

We want, you want, and others throughout 
the world want a lasting and durable peace 
in the Middle East. 

The first steps have been taken ; others 
will follow. And I am certain and positive 
that, as we meet here during the next several 
days, we can contribute to the building of a 
better and finer peace in the Middle East. 

I hope that you and Mrs. Rabin have a 
delightful and warm welcome, which you so 
richly deserve, in the United States. 

Prime Minister Rabin 

Mr. President, Mrs. Ford: I am grateful 
to you for your kind invitation to come to 
Washington and for your warm words of 

As you know, Mr. President, I am not a 
complete stranger in this country nor, in- 
deed, in this city. But this is the first time 
that I come here in my capacity of Prime 
Minister of Israel. 

You, Mr. President, have very recently 
undertaken new and awesome responsibili- 
ties, and I feel certain, therefore, that you 
can appreciate the weighty load that rests 
on my shoulders. 

I represent a country which is faced — 
which is facing manifold problems, great 
challenges, but also great and new oppor- 
tunities for internal progress and for peace 
with her neighbors. 

In the performance of my new duties I am 
encouraged, as all my predecessors have 
been, by their binding friendship and by the 
ever-deepening ties which bind the people 
of Israel with the people of this, the greatest 
democracy, and with its leaders. 

Ever since the renewal of Jewish inde- 
pendence in the land of our forefathers after 
long generations of suffering and martyr- 
dom, Israel has enjoyed generous aid and 
support on the part of the United States. 
Our gratitude for this sustenance will be re- 
corded forever in the annals of our people. 

During all these times since 1948, Israel 
has seen periods of trials and hardships. Yet 

October 7, 1974 

she never swerved, even for a moment, from 
her supreme national goal, which is the quest 
for peace with her Arab neighbors. 

So far, to our nation's deep sorrow, this 
goal has eluded us. Despite the recent test 
of arms, Israel is prepared to continue to 
seek progress toward peace. 

We have in recent months demonstrated 
that we have taken risks for peace to see 
whether new efforts may possibly bring us 
nearer to its achievement. 

I know, in this quest for peace in our re- 
gion, we have in you, Mr. President, and 
in your colleagues in the Government of the 
United States, a strong and determined 

Indeed, you, Mr. President, pronounced the 
commitment of the United States to the quest 
of world peace as the central theme in your 
inaugural address only a few weeks ago. 

The people of Israel stand united in the 
conviction that war is futile, that it cannot 
solve problems, that only human suffering 
is brought in its wake. As far as our part 
of the world is concerned, we are convinced 
that there is no issue, however complicated 
it may now appear, that it cannot be re- 
solved by patient negotiations. 

What is needed is an equal measure of de- 
sire and determination on all sides to achieve 

Much depends at this stage on what other 
governments in the area are prepared to do. 
At any rate, we in Israel are ready for the 
peacemaking effort. 

I must, however, with a full sense of re- 
sponsibility, add this: As you, Mr. President, 
assumed high office you conveyed to your 
people and to the world the message that a 
strong America is a paramount guarantee 
for peace in the world. This is true in the 
same measure as far as Israel and her own 
region are concerned. Only a strong Israel 
which has the capacity to deter aggression 
and to defend herself successfully by her own 
strengths has a chance of winning peace. 

I cannot underline strongly enough our 
conviction that the constant maintenance of 
Israel's strength is an absolute prerequisite 
for the attainment of solutions to the prob- 
lems of our troubled region. 



On these and other matters of common in- 
terest and concern, I shall be exchanging 
views with you, Mr. President, and your col- 
leagues, within the next few days. I look 
forward to doing so in the spirit of confi- 
dence and of the cultivation of a good future 
which has linked our governments and our 
people for so many years. 

I am confident that I shall return to Jeru- 
salem assured of the United States deter- 
mination to support the well-being of Israel 
within a Middle East that we hope that will 
finally be advancing on the road toward a 
just and durable peace which assures secu- 
rity and progress for all its people. 


Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents dated Sept. 16 

President Ford 

Mr. Prime Minister, Mrs. Rabin, and 
honored guests: It is a great privilege and 
honor for Mrs. Ford and myself to be host to 
the two of you on this occasion and to warmly 
welcome you back to the United States in 
this capacity as the Prime Minister of your 
great country. 

But I would also like to extend our warm 
welcome for all of your friends who are here 
and the many, many friends throughout the 
whole United States who are also good and 
firm friends of the two of you and to extend 
to you, representing your country, the depth 
and the warmth of the feeling that we in the 
United States have for Israel. 

As I was sitting here chatting with you 
and talking to Mrs. Rabin, I couldn't help 
but note that 1948 was a somewhat signifi- 
cant year as far as your country is con- 
cerned, and it just happened that it was 
quite a year as far as the Fords were con- 
cerned. It was the year that we were 
married — 

Mrs. Rabin: And the Rabins. 

President Ford: Oh! [Laughter.] — and 
the year that I got elected to Congress but, 
more importantly certainly, the year that 
Israel gained its independence. 

And I am pleased to note that our country 

was the first of all countries in the world 
at that time to recognize Israel. And we 
were proud to do it then, and we are proud 
that it was done by America at that time. 

It is especially nice to have the opportunity 
of meeting with you yesterday and today and 
tonight, tomorrow — a person who is a sol- 
dier, a diplomat, and a political leader — and 
to know that you represent your country so 
effectively and so well. 

The American people have a great deal of 
understanding and sympathy and dedication 
to the same kind of ideals that are represent- 
ative of Israel. And therefore I think we 
in America have a certain rapport and un- 
derstanding with the people of Israel. 

We, as two nations who believe in peace, 
have sought by joint action in conjunction 
with others a durable and stable peace in the 
Middle East which I think all of us agree is 
in the best interest of your country and the 
Middle East — the world as a whole. 

We as a country are proud to be associated 
with Israel in this mutual effort to move 
and to continue to move in the direction of 
an even better, more stable, and more equi- 
table peace in the Middle East. 

I can't tell you how pleased that we are 
to have the opportunity of expressing our 
gratitude for all of the things that our coun- 
tries have done together and all of the things 
that I hope that our two countries can con- 
tinue to do in the future. 

We have mutual aims and objectives. We 
have a friendship that is durable and grow- 
ing. We have the kind of relationship that I 
think, if expanded worldwide, would be bene- 
ficial to all mankind. 

And so if I may, Mr. Prime Minister, I 
would like to ask all of our guests here to- 
night to stand and to offer a toast to your 
President and to you and Mrs. Rabin: To 
the President. 

Prime Minister Rabin 

Mr. President, Mrs. Ford, distinguished 
guests: In the name of my wife and myself, 
I would like to thank you very much for 
inviting us and taking care of us during our 
visit here. 


Department of State Bulletin 

I remember, Mr. President, meeting you 
while you were the minority leader in the 
House. I had many talks then with you; I 
learned very much to admire you. And I 
know that by assuming the responsibilities 
of the President of the United States you 
have taken upon yourself tremendous — tre- 
mendous role not only for this country. But 
I believe that the President of the United 
States is the leader of the free world and 
has to bear in mind, if you would allow me 
to say so, not only the well-being of this coun- 
try but the well-being of all countries that 
strive for freedom, for democracy, because 
in the world that we live today, it is not 
always possible to a small country to do it 
against odds. 

The relations between the United States 
and Israel started many years ago. When 
our country was reborn we faced many 
problems. The first one was the absorption 
of many newcomers — immigrants — the rem- 
nants of the holocaust of Europe, the Second 
World War, the refugees that came from the 
Arab countries. I believe that we were a 
country that half of its population were 

And then the United States offered Israel 
economic aid, technical aid, that made it 
possible to us to absorb these people, our 
brothers, in a way that the transformation 
from refugees to be part of our creative 
society was very much facilitated by your 

During the years other problems appeared. 
The threat from outside became more ap- 
parent, and the United States added also 
military aid in terms of supplying us arms to 
be able to defend ourselves by ourselves. 

I think that 26 years from 1948 have 
proved that your support to us was used in 
the best way for the well-being of our people 
and for preservation of a democracy and the 
free country in that part of the world. 

And I would like to thank you and to thank 
everybody in this country that has made it 
possible till today. 

I don't know, Mr. President, if you have 
seen it. I have given a small present to you. 
It is a sculpture, a sculpture that describes 
the struggle between David and Goliath. I 

believe it is not only a story from the Bible ; 
it is a story that started then and continues 
on till the present days. 

And if there is something that symbolizes 
Israel today, it is the spirit of David facing 
Goliath. And the meaning of the spirit is, on 
the one hand, to seek peace, to believe in 
peace. We are a Jewish state, and we believe 
that part of being a Jew means to seek peace, 
to search peace; but on the other hand, to 
realize that peace is attainable only for those 
who are ready to take risks to dare to with- 
stand Goliaths. 

I believe that this is what is significant to 
Israel today, the spirit of David seeking 
peace and, at the same time, being ready and 
capable to meet some Goliaths. 

I hope and I believe, Mr. President, that 
under your leadership the relations between 
our two countries will continue, will be 
strengthened in the unique spirit that was 
so significant till today — the search of peace 
and the understanding that strength helps to 
achieve peace. 

Allow me, Mr. President, to raise my glass 
to the President of the United States. 

President Ford: Thank you very much. 

President Ford's News Conference 
of September 16 

Following are excerpts relating to foreign 
policy from the transcript of a news confer- 
ence held by President Ford in the East 
Room of the White House on September 16. 1 

Q. Mr. President, recent congressional tes- 
timony has indicated that the CIA, under the 
direction of a committee headed by Dr. Kis- 
singer, attempted to destabilize the Govern- 
ment of Chile under former President Al- 
lende. Is it the policy of your administration 
to attempt to destabilize the governments of 
other democracies? 

President Ford: Let me answer in general. 
I think this is a very important question. 

1 For the complete text, see Weekly Compilation 
of Presidential Documents dated Sept. 23. 

October 7, 1974 


Our government, like other governments, 
does take certain actions in the intelligence 
field to help implement foreign policy and 
protect national security. I am informed re- 
liably that Communist nations spend vastly 
more money than we do for the same kind of 

Now, in this particular case, as I under- 
stand it and there is no doubt in my mind — 
our government had no involvement whatso- 
ever in the Allende coup. To my knowledge, 
nobody has charged that. The facts are we 
had no involvement in any way whatsoever 
in the coup itself. 

In a period of time, three or four years 
ago, there was an effort being made by the 
Allende government to destroy opposition 
news media, both the writing press as well 
as the electronic press, and to destroy oppo- 
sition political parties. 

The effort that was made in this case was 
to help and assist the preservation of opposi- 
tion newspapers and electronic media and to 
preserve opposition political parties. 

I think this is in the best interest of the 
people in Chile, and certainly in our best in- 

Now, may I add one further comment. The 
Forty Committee was established in 1948. It 
has been in existence under Presidents since 
that time. That committee reviews every 
covert operation undertaken by our govern- 
ment, and that information is relayed to the 
responsible congressional committees where 
it is reviewed by House and Senate commit- 

It seems to me that the Forty Committee 
should continue in existence, and I am going 
to meet with the responsible congressional 

committees to see whether or not they want 
any changes in the review process so that the 
Congress, as well as the President, are fully 
informed and are fully included in the opera- 
tions for any such action. 

Q. Mr. President, in the face of massive 
food shortages and the prospects of signifi- 
cant starvation, will the United States be 
able to significantly increase its food aid to 
foreign countries, and what is our position 
going to be at the Rome conference on par- 
ticipation in the world grain reserves? 

President Ford: Within the next few days 
a very major decision in this area will be 
made. I am not at liberty to tell you what 
the answer will be, because it has not been 

But it is my hope that the United States, 
for humanitarian purposes, will be able to 
increase its contribution to those nations that 
have suffered because of drought or any of 
the other problems related to human needs. 

Q. Back to the CIA. Under what interna- 
tional law do we have a right to attempt to 
destabilize the constitutionally elected gov- 
ernment of another country, and does the 
Soviet Union have a similar right to try to 
destabilize the Government of Canada, for 
example, or the United States? 

President Ford: I am not going to pass 
judgment on whether it is permitted or au- 
thorized under international law. It is a rec- 
ognized fact that, historically as well as pres- 
ently, such actions are taken in the best in- 
terest of the countries involved. 


Department of State Bulletin 

Economic Interdependence and Common Defense 

Address by Deputy Secretary Robert S. Ingersoll 

I am delighted to be the first speaker on 
the agenda. We are hardly strangers. It is a 
pleasure to return for the day to the associa- 
tions and the issues that have shaped 35 
years of my business life. 

We have a joint purpose in our short time 
together. From my side, it is to put the is- 
sues as we see them in the Department in 
the clearest possible terms — to describe the 
connection we see between our domestic, for- 
eign, defense, and economic policies. Your 
purpose, I think, is to challenge our premises 
and conclusions and to present your own. Out 
of this exchange we should all learn some- 
thing useful. 

My own subject was chosen quite delib- 
erately. There is presumptive evidence, for 
example the recent Fortune poll, that the sup- 
port you have traditionally given to our de- 
fense policies is eroding. We have a deep 
interest in this phenomenon. We need to 
know why. What is the basis for your disen- 
chantment, if in fact it is as real as the polls 

The last decade has been a difficult one 
for all Americans — the international, racial, 
and personal violence of the 1960's, a series 
of violent international crises — Viet-Nam, 
the Arab-Israeli war, three Cyprus crises, 
internal upheavals in Latin America, Af- 
rica, and Asia. We have an energy crisis, 
a food crisis, an inflationary crisis, and a 
series of monetary crises. And in Watergate 

1 Made before the National Foreign Policy Confer- 
ence for Senior Business Executives at the Depart- 
ment of State on Sept. 5. 

we have just had a domestic crisis of im- 
mense proportions. 

Facing such a catalogue, it is easy to lose 
heart. But let us also recall our strengths: 

— We enjoy a credibility with allies and 
adversaries alike for strength, for leader- 
ship, for reliability, enjoyed by no one else. 

— We remain the largest single producer 
of most of the world's most important things, 
tools, energy, capital, and technology. 

— We are uniquely the most important pro- 
ducer of food. 

— Forty-five percent of the world's trade 
in wheat and almost 60 percent of its trade 
in feed grain and oilseed are of U.S. origin. 

As a result, we have a very special, indeed 
moral, responsibility toward that two-thirds 
of the world that is chronically undeveloped 
and protein-short. It is a responsibility we 
have discharged well in the last quarter 
century and that we must continue to dis- 
charge in the future. In short, gentlemen, 
the United States has a great reputation for 
toughness, stamina, and initiative. The 
world expects much of us — rightly, I think, 
for we expect much of ourselves. 

Let me put before you and explain two 
major realities within which our policy must 
be formulated: 

— First, economic interdependence is a 
fact. We must resolve the paradox of grow- 
ing mutual dependence and growing national 
and regional identities. 

— Second, common defense is a necessity. 
We and our allies must be prepared to adjust 

October 7, 1974 


it to changing conditions and share burdens 
equally. We need a definition of security that 
our peoples can support and that our adver- 
saries will respect in a period of lessened 

The Fact of Economic Interdependence 

Let me discuss each of these more fully. 
You in this audience know economic inter- 
dependence is a commonplace. 

Our exports and imports comprise some 
14 percent of our national production of 
goods. This year our import bill will run 
close to $100 billion; one-third of this will 
be raw materials — fuels, minerals, ores, and 

In a dozen critical materials we will be 
almost totally dependent on foreign sources 
— among them, bauxite, mercury, nickel, 
titanium, manganese, cobalt, tin, and chro- 
mium. There is a much longer list of critical 
materials where the margin of independence 
is critically thin. Oil leads the list, but it is 
by no means alone. Such basics as lead, zinc, 
and iron ore already comprise a large frac- 
tion of our import requirements. Nor is our 
dependence limited to raw materials. For 
years we were virtually the only exporter of 
services of every description from Peace 
Corps or elementary English teachers to the 
most arcane and sophisticated of aerospace 
technological services. But today, what 
American hospital could function without 
foreign interns, resident physicians, and 

Looked at from the other side, the free 
world is no less dependent on us than we on 
them. There are 24 OECD [Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development] 
countries. Taken together, they represent 
the bulk of the world's productive capacity. 
The United States is formally linked to 17 
of them by mutual security treaties. Last 
year they did almost 60 billion dollars' worth 
of business with us. They are the recipients 
of some 60 billion dollars' worth of direct 
United States investment. With few excep- 
tions, notably Canada and Australia, the 
OECD group is far more dependent than we 

on imports to survive — in fuels, in minerals, 
and in food. This immense traffic in essential 
goods and services demands that certain 
corollary conditions be met: 

— There should be a reasonably stable 
monetary system. 

— There should be some mechanism for 
allowing capital to flow across international 
boundaries to finance production capacity. 

— There should be further liberalization 
on a nondiscriminatory basis of tariff and 
nontariff restrictions on trade. 

— Finally, there should be a regime of law 
governing the great sea lanes. 

The Defense Side of the Equation 

This leads me to the defense side of the 

Clearly, no military policy we can conceive 
of today can breach tariff barriers, impose 
monetary reform, or dictate international 
investment regulations. Neither, in truth, 
can it realistically police the thousands of 
miles of sea lanes of communication. What 
it can do is help to establish an environment 
in which reason and good sense can be ap- 
plied to the problems that face an inter- 
dependent international economy. 

A world that cannot be intimidated by 
the threat or the use of force is a world that 
has some prospect of negotiating its eco- 
nomic and other differences to tolerable 
solutions. Our security policies and those 
of our allies are to this extent a critical ele- 
ment in maintaining efficient and uninter- 
rupted economic exchange. 

As Secretary Kissinger put it on April 23, 

The political, military, and economic issues . . . 
are linked by reality, not by our choice nor for the 
tactical purpose of trading one off against the other. 

Let us, then, examine the military reali- 

— Defense spending this year is expected 
to be in the $82 billion range, or 6 percent 
of our GNP. 

— About $13 billion covers the costs of 
paying, training, and supporting U.S. forces 


Department of State Bulletin 

deployed abroad under our mutual security 
commitments to NATO and our six multi- 
lateral and bilateral security treaties in Asia. 
About $4.5 billion of this sum enters our 
international balance of payments account. 
The entire European portion ($2.1 billion), 
however, is covered by negotiated offset 
agreements, and the remainder by U.S. sales 
of military equipment worldwide. 

— Our total military manpower is 2.1 mil- 
lion, of which something over 400,000 are 
abroad. Three-fourths of them are in 

— Our major allies, in aggregate, spend 
about $45 billion on defense, or roughly 4 
percent of their aggregate GNP. 

— They have 4 3 /4 million men under arms, 
over twice as many as we have. 

These figures represent the gross dimen- 
sions of our joint security efforts. The 
questions now before us are: 

— Are U.S. defense outlays supporting 
our alliances inconsistent with our foreign 
policy and economic interests? 

— Is the United States bearing a dispro- 
portionate share of those costs? 

The answer to both questions, I believe, 
is "No." On the first question: Ours is not 
a subsistence economy. Our per capita in- 
come is the highest of any developed country 
in the world. Our personal spending on auto- 
mobiles and the wherewithal to run them 
last year exceeded our entire defense budget 
by a significant margin. What we spend 
annually as a nation on tobacco and alcohol 
would easily cover the direct cost of our for- 
eign deployments. I cite these figures not as 
a criticism of our national sense of priori- 
ties but as a reminder that a narrow focus 
on defense spending masks other large fig- 
ures in the public and private sectors of our 
economy that no one thinks to ask about. 

This does not answer the question, how- 
ever, whether $82 billion is justified. It is 
inappropriate for the Department of State 
to attempt to defend any exact figure. It 
might be feasible to spend somewhat less; 
it might be prudent to spend somewhat more. 

My concern is not so much the money but, 
rather, the forces. 

— Money cuts must be translated into cuts 
in forces, equipment, and training. 

— U.S. forces now in being are the smallest 
since the Korean war. 

— The Communist forces present a formi- 
dable potential threat to precisely those 
countries in which we have the largest and 
most important trade and financial interests: 
to Germany, to the European members of 
NATO, to Japan, and to the smaller coun- 
tries of Northeast and Southeast Asia. 

The ideological, political, and other prob- 
lems that have divided the free and Com- 
munist worlds since the end of World War II 
have not been resolved, although significant 
progress has been made. So long as they are 
unresolved there is always the possibility 
that our adversaries will resort to threat or 
force to impose the solutions they want. 

In a nuclear-armed world, this is unaccept- 
able. There is only one alternative: To fore- 
close that option by making clear to those 
who would try it that the costs and risks 
would be unbearably high. By this means, 
together with positive incentives we can 
offer, particularly in the economic field, we 
hope to induce the resolution of differences 
through negotiation. 

I do not want to leave the impression from 
the foregoing of a never-ending spiral of 
defense spending. 

We have tested and continue to test the 
negotiating route in SALT [Strategic Arms 
Limitation Talks], in MBFR [Mutual and 
Balanced Force Reductions], and CSCE 
[Conference on Security and Cooperation in 
Europe], and the threshold test ban. Prog- 
ress is slow, but this is to be expected, as 
you can appreciate. The subject matter is 
enormously complex, and we are dealing in 
an area that touches the most vital interests 
of the Soviets, ourselves, and our allies — 
national security. But you will also appre- 
ciate, I think, that we have no rational 
alternative to negotiations, no matter how 
difficult and sensitive. 

Negotiation is a never-ending process, not 

October 7, 1974 


a state of equilibrium. It is a process that 
requires tenacity, clear sight, and endless 
patience. It entails an investment in time 
and money and, above all, ceaseless attention 
to maintaining a sturdy defense, a well-func- 
tioning economy, and a cohesive, cooperative 
set of relationships with those who have 
joined their strength and future with ours 
in the search for peace. 

Burden Sharing and Deterrence 

On the second question, of fair shares: 

— The statistics suggest that, in aggre- 
gate, our allies are doing a creditable job. 

— They have increased their defense 
spending over the last four years. NATO 
spending, for example, has increased by 
about 28 percent; ours by less than 5 per- 

— Total defense expenditure by NATO 
allies, as I noted earlier, is about $45 billion 
per year, the bulk of it devoted to general 
purpose forces. This is approximately the 
sum we spend annually to maintain our 
general purpose forces deployed worldwide 
and the forces we maintain at home, as a 
strategic reserve for reinforcement and for 
dealing with less than general war contin- 

— Individually, some could undoubtedly do 
more. It is central to U.S. policy to see that 
they do. 

— In the aggregate, our allies worldwide 
can field 10 soldiers for each one we have 
deployed abroad. The basic Nixon doctrine 
(1969) that "We shall look to the nation di- 
rectly threatened to assume the primary re- 
sponsibility of providing manpower for its 
defense" is thus fulfilled. 

A limit to burden sharing is imposed by 
two things: 

1. No ally alone or in combination can 
meet the formidable nuclear threat posed 
by the U.S.S.R. and the People's Republic of 
China, nor is it in our national interest to 
encourage them to try through proliferation 
of national nuclear forces. 

2. In the event an ally cannot find the 
necessary resources to defend himself, it is 
in the present self-interest of the United 
States to help. 

Deterrence, not burden sharing, is the 
priority objective of U.S. defense policy. 

Let me now restate my conclusions in brief 

Our economic dependence on the world 
and its on us is already large. That depend- 
ence is irreversible and growing. In the next 
quarter century, our demand for such basic 
commodities as iron ore, oil, aluminum, cop- 
per, and sulfur will increase enormously, as 
indeed will world demand. 

Self-sufficiency in the face of this expected 
growth is an illusion. This represents a 
threefold increase over world consumption 
of these commodities today. To produce, sell, 
and transport these basic commodities and 
the finished goods that result will require a 
degree of order, stability, and sophisticated 
economic planning unimaginable by today's 

The free world's military strength will 
continue to play an important role in the 
maintenance of a peaceful world — a sine qua 
non if the planet's minimum economic, politi- 
cal, and social aspirations are to be met. 

By virtue of our enormous economic ca- 
pacity and our military strength, we have 
no alternative open to us but leadership of 
the most challenging kind. As President 
Ford put it : 2 

"Successful foreign policy is an extension 
of the hopes of the whole American people 
for a world of peace and orderly reform and 
orderly freedom. 

"So long as the peoples of the world have 
confidence in our purposes and faith in our 
word, the age-old vision of peace on earth 
will grow brighter." 

2 For an excerpt from President Ford's address 
before a joint session of Congress on Aug. 12, see 
Bulletin of Sept. 2, 1974, p. 333. 


Department of State Bulletin 

Action Program for World Investment 

Address by Thomas 0. Enders 

Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs 1 

In responding to Secretary Kissinger's in- 
vitation, a large majority of you indicated a 
desire to discuss foreign investment. 

It is also one of our major preoccupations, 
made urgent by two compelling facts. One is 
the worldwide supply crisis ; the other is the 
need to make the recycling of oil dollars 
work for as long as the current extraordinar- 
ily high oil prices require. 

Let me take the supply problem first. The 
starting point here is that the world economy 
cannot solve the double problem of high in- 
flation and stagnation in output without a 
quantum increase in and restructuring of in- 

It is noteworthy that investment as a per- 
centage of total output has been relatively 
static or declining in the OECD [Organiza- 
tion for Economic Cooperation and Develop- 
ment] as a whole over a long period. More- 
over, its structure has been suboptimal, as 
shows up in the persistence of major short- 
ages in individual industries despite an over- 
all stagnation of demand: basic chemicals, 
food, fertilizer, capital goods, pulp and pa- 
per, iron and steel, and a number of key non- 
ferrous metals. 

Note also that cartel action in oil could not 
have been attempted had a strong rising de- 
mand for petroleum not been outrunning in- 
vestment and supply. And we are currently 
seeing an attempt by some Caribbean bauxite 
producers to take advantage of the conjunc- 
ture of high demand and the close of an in- 

1 Made before the National Foreign Policy Confer- 
ence for Senior Business Executives at the Depart- 
ment of State on Sept. 5. 

vestment cycle in the aluminum industry to 
raise prices in the OPEC [Organization of 
Petroleum Exporting Countries] manner. 

Taken together, sectors in which there have 
been major shortages this past 24 months 
and the oil sector account for a large share of 
recent price increases. Petroleum products, 
chemicals, and metals account for 40 per- 
cent of the rise in wholesale prices from July 
1973 to July 1974. 

For the shortage and cartelized sectors, the 
basic problem is thus how to create condi- 
tions in which the massive investment re- 
quired in new capacity and in alternative 
sources of supply will occur. 

Effective recycling of oil dollars is no less 
important. The economies of the industrial- 
ized world will not be able to grow and pros- 
per over the medium term unless it works; 
rather, they will start to break apart in re- 
ciprocal beggar-your-neighbor actions. 

For the first year of the oil crisis the 
great bulk of oil dollars were recycled to the 
Euromarket and done so efficiently. 

However, one cannot expect the Euro- 
market again to handle in the next 12 months 
a comparable volume of funds unless there 
are massive new infusions of capital into the 
banking operations engaged in intermediat- 
ing the short-to-medium-term deposits of oil- 
producing countries and the medium-to-long- 
term borrowing of consuming countries and 
enterprises. So far there has been no clear 
evidence that increase in capital of the kind 
required will be forthcoming. Thus it is com- 
monly predicted that the great bulk of fu- 
ture recycling will flow through national 

October 7, 1974 


capital markets; through such state-to-state 
loans as Germany and Italy have just con- 
cluded ; through direct lending by producing 
to consuming countries, as in the case of the 
large Iranian loans to Britain and France; 
or through the use of multilateral recycling 
facilities such as the Witteveen fund [the 
International Monetary Fund oil facility]. 

However, the mere fact that the recycling 
operation has worked relatively well up to 
the present and that these alternative mech- 
anisms are available does not permit us to be 
confident that the operation will proceed ef- 
fectively in the future; for we do not yet 
know what the impact will be of the accumu- 
lation of massive debts by the consuming 
countries and thus what further institutions 
may be needed to underpin the system. 

Climate for International Investment 

If the need for the free flow of interna- 
tional investment has never been greater, the 
climate in which it can occur has deteriorated 
both at home and abroad. 

At home the acceleration of foreign invest- 
ment both in industry and in real estate over 
the past 24 months has given rise to concern 
at the influence and power foreign investors 
may acquire over our economy. 

The actual volumes of direct incoming in- 
vestment are relatively small, although grow- 
ing — in 1973 incoming was $3.5 billion, ver- 
sus $14 billion outgoing — and much of the 
reaction stems from their concentration in a 
few states. But it would be wrong to dismiss 
these fears which, if not addressed fully and 
directly, could develop into a serious political 
problem. Equally, it would be very wrong to 
take ill-considered or hasty action on the ba- 
sis of these fears. 

Americans are just beginning now to ex- 
perience what many other countries, notably 
in Europe and in Latin America, have experi- 
enced when foreign enterprise enters the 
economy on a substantial scale. In Europe 
and Latin America, ways have been found 
for mutual adjustment between the foreign 
enterprise and the host country. Similar ad- 
justments are and will be found in the United 

Overseas, changing attitudes toward the 
great transnational enterprises, and the ris- 
ing number of investment disputes, are pos- 
ing new uncertainties to potential investors. 

Since the Second World War, American 
enterprise overseas has been the most dy- 
namic single agent of economic change in the 
world, consistently outperforming every na- 
tional economy, including Japan's. But the 
very success of the transnational enterprises 
has called forth reaction to them of two 
sorts : 

— The first is political, doctrinal, empha- 
sizing conflict between the separate jurisdic- 
tions of the host country and the country of 
incorporation, opposition between the politi- 
cal power of the host country and the eco- 
nomic power of the enterprise, and the dan- 
gers of "business culture." A few real abuses 
are cited, notably the grave ITT-Chile prob- 
lem, but most arguments are in terms of po- 
tential abuses. Characteristically, proponents 
of this view regard transnational enterprises 
as very profitable and driven by a strong de- 
sire to invest. They see the problem as how 
to protect the smaller and developing coun- 
tries from the intended or unintended power 
of these enterprises, how to right the balance 
of bargaining between individual host coun- 
tries and transnational enterprises with flex- 
ibility to locate in many countries. In a word, 
they see the problem as how to regulate 
transnational enterprises for the common 
good. This view, which is set forth fully and 
in moderate terms in the report of the UN. 
Group of Eminent Persons on Multinational 
Corporations, is widely held in developing 
countries and is common also in industrial- 
ized countries. In both it corresponds to 
deeply held political concerns. It would be a 
misreading to expect that the urge to regu- 
late transnational enterprises will level off 
and wane; on the contrary, it will probably 

— The second reaction is the growth in the 
volume of investment disputes. The increase 
has not been as rapid or as great as many 
feared. But nonetheless the volume is sig- 
nificant. From June 30, 1971, through July 
31, 1973, American firms with an aggregate 


Department of State Bulletin 

book value in excess of $1.5 billion became in- 
volved in 87 new investment disputes. The 
statistic is somewhat artificial since the grav- 
ity of the dispute varies widely from case to 
case. Nor is it possible to give a good com- 
parison from statistics of earlier years. But 
the total is clearly up from what it has been. 

Narrowing Areas of Potential Conflict 

It is inefficient, indeed probably impossi- 
ble, to deal with these investment issues in 
terms of principles. 

No lawyer is going to devise a formula 
which will reconcile the principle of the Ar- 
gentinian Carlos Calvo, according to which a 
foreign investor should renounce the protec- 
tion of his home country, and the law of 
many countries under which their govern- 
ments are required to extend assistance to 
their citizens overseas. Nor is there any way 
of determining at a high level of generality, 
as the U.N. Group of Eminent Persons would 
like to, what right package of services, eq- 
uity, and technology transnational enter- 
prises should offer developing countries. Nor 
can we expect, at any early point, agreement 
on what are good and what are bad take- 
overs, which seems by all odds to be the most 
sensitive issue. 

Rather, progress will be best made by con- 
centrating on individual practical issues. 

Some of the most significant economic is- 
sues can be handled through tax treaties pro- 
viding for national-treatment protection as 
well as negotiations between the national tax 
authorities on a case-by-case basis in dis- 
putes such as transfer pricing. 

By limiting its ambitions, the current 
OECD exercise on capital movements can 
create a strong, clear area of agreement on 
the national treatment of already existing 

Additionally, the Working Group on Trans- 
national Enterprises set up at a meeting of 
Foreign Ministers of the Organization of 
American States at Washington in April can 
lead to a new, more powerful procedure for 
factfinding in investment disputes. 2 

Each of these actions will tend to narrow 
the area of potential conflict. Such partial 

and limited agreements will tend in turn to 
create the basis on which further limited 
agreements can be made. A sequence can 
thus be engaged by which the most intracta- 
ble problems, which may in the end turn out 
to be largely theoretical in any case, are 
gradually circumscribed and limited. 

For these are areas in which progress is 
all important. 

The great outpouring of discourse about 
transnational enterprises in the last 15 years 
has shed astonishingly little new light on 
their economics and operations. But it has 
sensitized the enterprises themselves to many 
of the problems they face in entering or op- 
erating in foreign countries and enabled 
them to develop new and often quite imagina- 
tive ways of structuring or executing their 
business. Innovative capital structures, serv- 
ice contracts, participation arrangements, 
phaseout and access agreements have, as a 
result, been tried and in certain circum- 
stances have proved to be feasible. At the 
same time many governments have become 
more sophisticated about foreign investment 
and about its basic principle — that without 
adequate expectations of return, there is no 
way to achieve the desired level of invest- 

Progress is also important in dealing with 
the resolution of individual disputes. The 
most efficient means of doing so is to estab- 
lish an agreed means of conciliation and, if 
necessary, arbitration. Sixty-five nations 
have chosen to do so by ratifying the treaty 
establishing the International Center for the 
Settlement of International Investment Dis- 
putes. ICSID now faces its first great test in 
the case of the Jamaican aluminum con- 

For other countries, which do not accept 
the concept of international arbitration, al- 
ternative, if less efficient, procedures can be 
established. The most useful such devices are 
arrangements for factfinding and for encour- 
aging and sustaining negotiations. 


2 For text of a communique issued at Washington 
on Apr. 18 at the conclusion of a meeting of West- 
ern Hemisphere Foreign Ministers, see Bulletin of 
May 13, 1974, p. 517. 

October 7, 1974 


Finally, national governments can play a 
great role in the solution of investment dis- 
putes. The U.S. Government cannot be im- 
partial in a dispute in which it appears that 
the rights of American citizens or enter- 
prises under international law are being in- 
fringed. But that is not the only and not 
necessarily the main role it plays in such 
disputes. Often our primary concern is to 
help structure and carry through a process 
of negotiation that will lead toward resolu- 

The Insurance Function 

But even with major progress in the areas 
of tax agreements, capital movement codes, 
conciliation and arbitration, and dispute res- 
olution, major uncertainties will inevitably 
remain in the area of foreign investment. 
These uncertainties can be made manageable 
and acceptable by insurance; this is the role 
of the Overseas Private Investment Corpora- 
tion (OPIC). 

Over the past year, with the renewal of 
OPIC's authorization, there has been much 
soul-searching about its proper role. Some 
have questioned whether it made sense to 
encourage, through insurance, private in- 
vestment in developing countries given the 
greater incidence of investment disputes. 
Others have felt strongly that the insurance 
function could as well be performed by pri- 
vate insurers and have pressed for privatiza- 
tion of OPIC. 

While these concerns are significant and 
privatization must be given a proper trial, 
they should not be allowed to determine the 
size of the OPIC program at a time when 
there is such an urgent need for new invest- 
ment, particularly in basic commodities, but 
also in a range of key industrial operations. 
Thus the OPIC management must expand its 
insurance operations vigorously. The admin- 
istration should be ready to seek new author- 
ity for OPIC should it reach insurable limits. 

Increasing availabilities of products in 
short supply is first of all an investment 
problem worldwide — not just one for U.S. 

investment, domestic or foreign. In this re- 
spect, the Export-Import Bank can play an 
important role in financing sound projects — 
sponsored by foreign as well as U.S. in- 
vestors—which increase production of short- 
supply items. 

Strengthening the Worldwide Investment Market 

I have spoken here of the need for a higher 
rate of investment, and of the climate in 
which it can occur, in worldwide terms. 

It used to be that one could argue about 
foreign versus domestic investment as if 
there were a real option between them. The 
arguments go on, but the reality has shifted 
behind them. We still have the option of 
controls on outward capital flows, but our 
experience in the 1960's showed that if you 
could temporarily dam up outward invest- 
ments you cannot really change their overall 
thrust. One can refuse entry to transnational 
enterprises, but with a significant percentage 
of the non-Communist world's GNP gener- 
ated by them — and the most dynamic part of 
it — there is a significant penalty to doing so. 
One has the option of refusing oil producers' 
funds, but all our economies need a greater 
flow of savings. And you can't have it btith 
ways, with one investment policy for in- 
coming, and another for outgoing, capital. 

In a very real sense, there is a single 
worldwide investment market. It needs 
strengthening and perfecting. This, as we 
see it, is the action agenda: 

— First, we must sustain free access to 
the American capital market both for bor- 
rowers and for investors. The decision in 
January to end the decade-old controls and 
taxes on capital outflow constituted a major 
contribution to making the recycling of oil 
dollars work. There must be no return to 
controls on capital outflows or to taxes on 
them. Equally, we must continue to remain 
open to foreign investment. It is useful to 
go ahead with detailed studies like the 
Tariff Commission's on multinational cor- 
porations and the Culver-Inouye [Represent- 


Department of State Bulletin 

ative John C. Culver; Senator Daniel K. 
Inouye] proposal for a detailed survey of 
foreign investment in the United States. 
These studies will help sensitize foreign in- 
vestors to problem areas and to practices 
that can usefully be avoided. They may also 
result in recommendations for addition of 
specific sectors to those that have tradition- 
ally been reserved for American investors 
only. We will certainly need a better report- 
ing system. 

— Second, we must be certain that the in- 
ternational banking system is able to con- 
tinue to play its part in the oil recycling 
operation. For that we will need to make 
sure that each banking operation can have 
recourse to a "lender of last resort" in cases 
of illiquidity; at present there are a range 
of Euromarket banking operations, most of 
them subsidiaries of large banks, that are 
not so covered. And we may have to con- 
sider a system of multilateral guarantees by 
governments to cover oil deficits to make 
sure countries can borrow what they need 
in international capital markets. 

— Third, we should continue to seek full 
national treatment for U.S. investment 
abroad, and we must insist on prompt, ade- 
quate, and effective compensation in the few 
cases of nationalization. Where needed and 
appropriate, we will bring to bear available 
political and economic influence to get a 
satisfactory resolution, recognizing that the 
basic sanction is the damage the host coun- 
try does to its future investment prospects. 

— Fourth, at the same time, we must take 
every opportunity to enlarge the area of non- 
legally-binding codes, guidelines, and under- 
standings in which both host country and 
enterprise can have stable expectations about 
each other's behavior. Generalized discourse 
on these issues can go on at the United 
Nations; but our strategy will press for 
progress at the regional level, where real 
interest and real problems in investment are 
more easily identified. The OECD invest- 
ment exercise and the Working Group on 
Transnational Enterprises are particularly 

promising in this regard. We will press 
ahead very actively in these two forums. 

— Fifth, it is important for the companies 
to continue to develop their sensitivity to 
host country concerns and problems. The 
great American enterprises that operate in- 
ternationally have shown themselves to be 
highly adaptive. As host country problems 
are gradually identified, I am confident that 
new modes of investment will be invented to 
respond to them. 

— Sixth, a yet greater effort can be de- 
ployed in the investment dispute area. Our 
policy cannot, of course, be designed essen- 
tially to avoid investment disputes; clearly 
there are other and more important equi- 
ties in almost every case. But the American 
Ambassador abroad and the State Depart- 
ment at home will take the lead in seeking 
to identify possible procedures leading to a 
resolution and to encourage the parties to 
the dispute to make use of them. 

— Seventh, we need to expand more rap- 
idly the area of transactions governed by 
tax treaties. At present we have treaties 
with 22 countries and about 10 more are at 
various stages of negotiation. We shall ac- 
tively press to expand that number. At the 
same time, the traditional scope of tax 
treaties should be broadened so as to include 
provisions for intergovernmental negotia- 
tions on transfer pricing and better protec- 
tion against domestic taxation that has a 
confiscatory or discriminatory effect against 
foreign enterprise. 

— Finally, we must actively support in- 
vestment overseas through OPIC's program 
of insurance, expanding the program as 
necessary to cover the volume of investment 
that will be needed to overcome the major 
shortages in the world economy. 

Let me end where I began. The world 
economy needs much more investment. These 
are the things we think we should be doing 
about it. But you are the experts in the 
field. We would very much like to know 
what you think ought to be done. 

October 7, 1974 


Secretary Kissinger Pays Tribute 
to Former Secretary Acheson 

Following are remarks made by Secretary 
Kissinger on September 17 at a ceremony 
marking the presentation of a portrait of the 
late Secretary of State Dean Acheson to the 
National Portrait Gallery at Washington. 

Press release 365 dated September 18 

We come here this evening to do honor 
to one of the greatest of my predecessors. 
We do so for many reasons — out of affection, 
for reasons of friendship, and because of our 
admiration for his genius. 

As a historian I have long respected the 
heritage left by Dean Acheson the public 
servant. He brought unity from the chaos 
that was the legacy of war ; he built a mighty 
alliance that gave hope and security to mil- 
lions; he fashioned an international struc- 
ture that lasted far past his own departure 
from the public scene. The magnitude of his 
accomplishments has assured that ever after- 
ward he will serve as the standard against 
which his successors will inevitably be 

But for me this ceremony tonight is far 
more than mere history. 

It is, first of all, an opportunity to give 
thanks for the gallantry he displayed toward 
me when I first came to Washington almost 
six years ago. I shall be forever grateful for 
his wise counsel during those difficult times, 
and I shall never forget his concern — free of 
partisanship — for the proper governance of 
this nation. 

But most important, this ceremony pro- 
vides an opportunity to remind ourselves 
that what Dean Acheson was, what he stood 
for as a man, remains vital and alive today 
and that he set a standard against which all 
of us — in government or out — must judge 

He was a man of dignity — in his person 
and in his view of the public process. He 
revered the greatness and majesty of the 
nation he served, and never demeaned it. He 

felt deeply the duty his country demanded, 
and never shirked it. 

He was, as well, a man of wit and humor ; 
life was fun and it was fun to be around 
him. I shall, for example, never forget his 
description to me of a then senior statesman: 
"He reminds me of an amateur boomerang 
thrower practicing his art in a crowded 
room." On another occasion, though as a 
Harvard man I personally could not find it 
particularly amusing, he described President 
Truman as "a Yale man in the finest sense 
of the word." Finally — and much closer to 
home, given my former profession — he said 
in one of his remarkably articulate speeches: 

While public men cannot escape historians, they 
would do well to forget them while they get on with 
their job. One cannot even be sure of fixing the jury 
by employing its members — though it may help tem- 
porarily — or by becoming a member and writing its 
verdict. . . . 

So much, then, for historians. And so 
much for any thoughts I may have had about 
future employment once I depart my current 

The Acheson legacy is nowhere more per- 
vasive — nowhere more deeply felt — than in 
the institution I now head. He will not pass 
from the hearts and minds of those who 
worked with and for him, for he gave them 
an understanding of the great adventure 
they were embarked upon. And he inspired 
hundreds who knew him only as a legend. 
He took them beyond themselves, beyond the 
petty concerns that can stultify and smother 
a bureaucracy, and showed them the breadth 
and scope of the business they were really 
about — the peace, the security, and the well- 
being of their own nation and of all mankind. 
In charting his great enterprise, he engen- 
dered a sense of pride, of purpose and dedi- 
cation, that put the Department of State at 
the center of the policymaking process — 
not because an organization chart indicated 
that it should be but because its quality 
demonstrated that it must be. 

It is, perhaps, the ultimate compliment 
that any man can receive that more than 20 


Department of State Bulletin 

years after his departure from office his way 
of thought and action remains the test of 
quality and his example the goal for which 
those who have followed after him still 

As he was an inspiration to his subordi- 
nates, so was he devoted to his chief. As he 
said in describing himself: 

Like General Marshall, his successor never forgot 
who was President, and the President most punc- 
tiliously remembered who was Secretary of State. 
This mutual restraint is basic to a sound working 
relation between the two. 

And a sound relationship they did indeed 
possess. Nothing so briefly yet so eloquently 
sums up the depth of that remarkable rela- 
tionship as does the simple dedication of 
"Present at the Creation"— "To Harry S. 
Truman 'The captain with the mighty 

Finally, Dean Acheson was a man of rare 
honor and integrity — a man who saw the 
human condition, and the awful influences of 
power, more clearly than most. In an elo- 
quent statement before a Senate committee 
in 1950 he said: 

In the long days and years which stretch beyond 
that moment of decision, one must live with one's self; 
and the consequences of living with a decision which 
one knows has sprung from timidity and cowardice 
go to the roots of one's life. It is not merely a ques- 
tion of peace of mind, although that is vital; it is a 
matter of integrity of character. 

The strength, the humanity, and the com- 
passion of Dean Acheson are found in those 
few words. They are a reaffirmation of his 
greatness for all who loved or admired him ; 

they are a challenge to all who treasure his 

Justice Holmes once said, in a speech that 
Secretary Acheson was fond of quoting: 

Alas, gentlemen .... We cannot live our dreams. 
We are lucky enough if we can give a sample of our 
best, and if in our hearts we can feel that it has been 
nobly done. 

Dean Acheson more nearly lived his 
dreams than any man I know of. He gave 
us his best. And it was, indeed, nobly done. 

Senate Confirms U.S. Delegation 
to 29th U.N. General Assembly 

The Senate on September 17 confirmed 
the nominations of the following to be Repre- 
sentatives and Alternate Representatives of 
the United States to the 29th session of the 
General Assembly of the United Nations: 


John A. Scali 

W. Tapley Bennett, Jr. 

Stuart Symington, U.S. Senator from the State 

of Missouri 
Charles H. Percy, U.S. Senator from the State 

of Illinois 
Thomas H. Kuchel 

Alternate Representatives 

Oliver C. Carmichael, Jr. 
Joseph M. Segel 
William E. Schaufele, Jr. 
Clarence Clyde Ferguson, Jr. 
Barbara M. White 

October 7, 1974 



Department Discusses Proposed Nuclear Reactor Agreements 
With Egypt and Israel 

Statement by Joseph J. Sisco 

Under Secretary for Political Affairs 1 

It is a great pleasure to appear before you 
today to discuss with you our proposed com- 
mercial nuclear agreements with Israel and 
Egypt. Because you have already heard from 
my colleagues in the executive branch and be- 
cause you are already well informed on the 
basic facts of these agreements, I will keep 
my opening remarks as brief as possible so 
we can go directly to your questions. 

Let me explain at the outset exactly where 
discussions on this subject with Egypt and 
Israel stand. Both countries were given draft 
agreements in June. Since that time the 
United States has given both countries modi- 
fications to be made in the drafts, and the 
Egyptians have raised a number of ques- 
tions as to the interpretation and intent of 
various of the provisions in the drafts. The 
most recent discussion with the Egyptian 
representatives was on August 15 in Wash- 
ington. The Israelis have not given us their 
detailed views on these drafts. 

Nuclear technology is a two-edged sword. 
The Middle East is a volatile and dangerous 
area. No one — least of all someone like my- 

1 Made before the Subcommittees on International 
Organizations and Movements and on the Near East 
and South Asia of the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs on Sept. 16. The complete transcript of the 
hearings will be published by the committee and 
will be available from the Superintendent of Docu- 
ments, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing- 
ton, D.C. 20402. 

self who has been concerned with Middle 
Eastern affairs for many years — could 
lightly take a decision to sell U.S. nuclear 
reactors and fuel there. 

I would like to make four general observa- 
tions. We believe : 

— That an offer to sell commercial power 
reactors and fuel to Egypt and Israel will 
help reinforce the momentum toward peace 
in the area; 

— That our offer makes sound economic 
sense ; 

— That our offer limits the possibilities of 
adding to the dangers of nuclear weapons 
proliferation in the area ; and 

— That our offer will be accompanied by 
the most effective safeguards possible. 

Let me elaborate on these four points. 

We began with one key assessment: That 
if the United States did not cooperate with 
Egypt and Israel in their desire to obtain 
nuclear power reactors, others — who are far 
less concerned with nonproliferation goals — 
would. Only by taking a positive stance could 
we help shape the manner in which this tech- 
nology was brought into a geographic area 
of vital concern to uc. 

Nuclear technology will inevitably find its 
way into Egypt and Israel, given the eco- 
nomic benefits of nuclear power plants for 
electrical generation. By selling reactors to 


Department of State Bulletin 

both countries at the same time and under 
comparable conditions, we will help insure 
that commercial-scale nuclear technology en- 
ters the region in a balanced and symmetric 
manner — a result which can minimize risks 
and reduce tensions. 

But we also believed a positive response 
would add to the forces that can help turn 
the area from war toward peace. 

Since the signing of the disengagement 
agreements between Israel and Syria and 
Egypt, we have been moving to sustain the 
momentum of the progress toward peace and 
to strengthen our relations with those coun- 
tries whose contributions to its realization 
are indispensable. In August we had impor- 
tant discussions with Arab leaders, and we 
have just completed significant talks with 
the Prime Minister of Israel. 

These consultations will be carried on later 
this month in the context of the opening of 
the U.N. General Assembly session. Our hope 
is that these will lead to understanding on 
the course of further negotiations. There 
must be continuing progress if we are to 
avoid risking what has already been achieved. 

The intangible in this process is confidence. 
Our willingness to sell reactors and associ- 
ated fuel to both countries provides evidence 
to Israel and Egypt of our interest in broad 
and continuing cooperation with them. On 
their part, it signifies their confidence in 
American technology and, more importantly, 
in the stability of their future relationship 
with the United States. That the power 
plants we are discussing would not become 
operational until the 1980's underlines this 
point. The mutual interest in friendly rela- 
tions will be given material expression. But 
perhaps more importantly, the element of 
confidence — so indispensable to the peace- 
making process — will be reinforced. 

There was also an economic dimension to 
our decision. Nuclear power reactors make 
economic sense in both countries. With the 
dramatic increase in oil prices, the World 
Bank, for example, which has been histori- 
cally conservative about this technology, now 

endorses it as economically viable for na- 
tions like Egypt and Israel. 

So there were foreign policy purposes and 
an economic rationale for responding favor- 
ably to reactor requests. But we also have 
to be sure that the commercial nuclear equip- 
ment and materials provided by the United 
States could be protected with nuclear safe- 
guards adequate to the very special dangers 
that pervade the Middle East. 

Under our Nonproliferation Treaty obli- 
gation, we are obligated to insure that Inter- 
national Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 
safeguards are placed on material trans- 
ferred to other states through agreements 
for cooperation in the peaceful nuclear field. 
We believe that in most areas of the world 
these IAEA safeguards are adequate to meet 
prevailing risks. An IAEA-safeguarded re- 
actor has never been used for peaceful nu- 
clear explosions or for diversion of pluto- 

It is clear to us, however, that IAEA 
safeguards must be supplemented to meet 
the unique circumstances of the Middle East. 
For example, the potential for uncertainty 
about weapons development has to be closed 
off, particularly the potential for uncertainty 
on the part of nations in the area. Doubts on 
one side about what the other side might be 
doing with his plutonium could have a dev- 
astating effect on Middle Eastern peace. It 
was for this latter reason that we saw the 
introduction of additional controls as a mat- 
ter of self-interest in both Egypt and Israel. 

Moreover, we were and are resolved to 
make the special safeguards on our nuclear 
power agreements not only adequate to risks 
but, just as importantly, precedent-setting as 
to their nonproliferation benefits. 

As you are aware, the reactors we con- 
template supplying are themselves without 
weapons potential, and the low-enriched 
uranium fuel cannot be used for nuclear 
explosives. Rather, the threat arises in three 
areas ; we are determined that each be choked 

— First, that either government will overt- 




October 7, 1974 


ly or covertly divert the plutonium byproduct 
of the reactors and make it into weapons. 
Against the risk of diversion, our agree- 
ments with Israel and Egypt will supplement 
inspection by the IAEA by specifying that 
the reprocessing and storage of the pluto- 
nium will be done outside each country. 

— Second, that either government will use 
the material for what would be described as 
a peaceful nuclear explosion. Our agreement 
will explicitly preclude peaceful nuclear ex- 
plosions. And let me say here we do not be- 
lieve that there is any technical distinction 
between a peaceful explosion and a weapons 

— Third, that some of the material could 
be stolen or that the reactors would be sub- 
ject to terrorist attack. Against the risk of 
sabotage or attack, our agreements will pro- 
vide for assurance that stringent physical 
security procedures are applied by both 

I summarize here only because I know 
how thoroughly you have studied the details 
of our planned safeguards. Two questions 
have almost certainly occurred to you, as 
they have to me. First, how can we be sure 
that both or either of the countries will not 
violate the safeguards we are writing into 
the agreements? And second, why don't we 
insist on adherence to the Nonproliferation 
Treaty as a condition for supplying the re- 
actors? Allow me to respond to them. 

There can never be an ironclad guarantee 
that a country will not violate an inter- 
national agreement, whatever its nature and 
no matter how tightly written. But we think 
that the provisions of these agreements and 
the interests of both Israel and Egypt make 
violation extremely unlikely. We start from 
the premise that a violation could not be 
kept a secret from either the United States 
or the international community. Thus, in 
case of a violation: 

— The United States would have the option 
to suspend its supply of fuel for the reactors, 
and the violating country would have great 
difficulty finding a new source, particularly 

in circumstances where the world was in full 
knowledge of the violation. 

— The violation would alert its adversary 
to the fact that it was building nuclear 

— A violation would place in great jeop- 
ardy the offending country's economic, politi- 
cal, and diplomatic relationships with the 
United States. 

The disincentives to unilateral abrogation 
are very great. 

The United States is committed to seeking 
the widest possible adherence to the Non- 
proliferation Treaty. We hope that both 
Israel and Egypt will eventually join us and 
all other nations in subscribing to it. The 
agreements we propose to sign with them 
will reflect faithfully their support for the 
treaty's objectives. 

However, it is clear that neither Israel nor 
Egypt sees its national interests presently 
served by becoming a party to the Nonpro- 
liferation Treaty. Over the short run vir- 
tually nothing is likely to alter these percep- 

Our efforts must be bent to helping build 
the conditions in which those perceptions can 
change. It is our hope that provision of 
peaceful nuclear facilities under strict con- 
trols against military use can create in time 
a momentum toward a climate consistent 
with the goal of nonproliferation within the 
region and between both nations and the 
United States. 

Mr. Chairmen, members of the subcom- 
mittee: Historians of a future age will un- 
doubtedly comment on 20th-century man's 
efforts to match his political will to his 
technological grasp. That struggle is sharply 
etched in the issue you are considering today. 

The most modern and potentially the most 
dangerous of technologies is at the threshold 
of an area where there has been no lasting 
vision of peace for a generation. Now such 
a vision is beginning to take shape. Through 
prudently molded agreements we propose to 
use technology to hasten progress toward its 
full development. 

I hope that you can support us in this task. 


Department of State Bulletin 


U.S.-Bulgaria Consular Convention 
Transmitted to the Senate 

Message From President Ford l 

To the Senate of the United States: 

I am pleased to transmit for the Senate's 
advice and consent to ratification the Con- 
sular Convention between the United States 
of America and the People's Republic of Bul- 
garia, with an Agreed Memorandum and a 
related exchange of letters, signed at Sofia 
on April 15, 1974. I transmit also, for the in- 
formation of the Senate, the report of the 
Department of State with respect to the Con- 

The signing of this Convention is a signifi- 
cant step ii the gradual process of improving 
and broadening the relationship between the 
United States and Bulgaria. Consular rela- 
tions between the two countries have not pre- 
viously been subject to formal agreement. 
This Convention will establish firm obliga- 
tions on such important matters as free com- 
munication between a citizen and his consul, 
notification to consular officers of the arrest 
and detention of their citizens, and permis- 
sion for visits by consuls to citizens who are 
under detention. 

1 Transmitted on Sept. 12 (text from White House 
press release); also printed as S. Ex. H., 93d Cong., 
2d sess., which includes the texts of the conven- 
tion, the agreed memorandum and related letters, 
and the report of the Department of State. 

I welcome the opportunity through this 
Consular Convention to strengthen the ties 
between the United States and Bulgaria. I 
urge the Senate to give the Convention its 
prompt and favorable consideration. 

Gerald R. Ford. 

The White House, September 12, 197 U. 

Congressional Documents 
Relating to Foreign Policy 

93d Congress, 2d Session 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Report to accom- 
pany S. 3190. S. Rept. 93-1019. July 17, 1974. 3 pp. 

Duty-Free Entry of Telescope and Associated Arti- 
cles for Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Project. 
Report to accompany H.R. 11796. H. Rept. 93-1213. 
July 24, 1974. 13 pp. 

African Development Fund. Report to accompany S. 
2354. S. Rept. 93-1029. July 25, 1974. 4 pp. 

Energy Transportation Security Act of 1974. Report, 
together with minority views, on H.R. 8193, to re- 
quire that a percentage of U.S. oil imports be car- 
ried on U.S.-flag vessels. S. Rept. 93-1031. July 
25, 1974. 66 pp. 

Russian Grain Transactions. Report of the Senate 
Committee on Government Operations made by its 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. S. 
Rept. 93-1033. July 29, 1974. 67 pp. 

Increased U.S. Participation in the Asian Develop- 
ment Bank. Report to accompany S. 2193. S. Rept. 
93-1040. July 30, 1974. 11 pp. 

Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Confer- 
ence Report to accompany S. 2957. H. Rept. 93- 
1233. July 30, 1974. 13 pp. 

Passport Application Fees. Report to accompany 
H.R. 15172. H. Rept. 93-1242. July 31, 1974. 4 pp. 




October 7, 1974 



Calendar of International Conferences ' 

Scheduled October Through December 

ECE Group of Experts on Automatic Data Processing 

ECAFE Committee on Industry and Technology and Housing . . 

OECD Oil Committee 

WIPO Working Group on Scientific Discoveries 

OECD Export Credits Group 

IMCO Maritime Safety Committee: 31st Session 

ECE Working Party on Facilitation of International Trade Proce- 

ILO Preparatory Meeting on Civil Aviation 

ICAO Legal Subcommittee: 21st Session 

ECE Ad Hoc Meeting on a New Chemical Study 

NATO Civil Defense Committee 

FAO Intergovernmental Group on Meat: 4th Session 

FAO Intergovernmental Group on Jute, Kenaf, and Allied Fibers: 
9th Session. 

ECE Group of Rapporteurs on Container Transport 

GATT Committee on Budget and Administration 

9th FAO Regional Conference for Europe 

U.N. ECOSOC Statistical Commission: 18th Plenary Meeting . . 

OECD Development Assistance Committee 

ECAFE Typhoon Committee 

ECE Chemical Industry Committee 

GATT Working Party on Trade With Poland 

ECE Preparatory Meeting for Seminar on Construction in Seismic 
Regions With Difficult Ground Conditions. 

GATT Balance of Payments Committee 

ECE Group of Experts on Road Traffic Safety 

CCC Permanent Technical Committee: 85th-86th Sessions . . . . 

ECE Timber Committee 

PAHO Executive Committee: 73d Meeting 

UNHCR Executive Committee: 25th Session 

Geneva Oct. 1-2 

Bangkok .... Oct. 1-8 

Paris Oct. 2 

Geneva Oct. 2-4 

Paris Oct. 3-4 

London Oct. 3-4 

Geneva Oct. 3-4 

Geneva Oct. 3-10 

Montreal .... Oct. 3-22 

Geneva Oct. 7-8 

Brussels .... Oct. 7-9 

Rome Oct. 7-10 

Rome Oct. 7-10 

Geneva Oct. 7-11 

Geneva Oct. 7-11 

Lausanne .... Oct. 7-12 

Geneva Oct. 7-18 

Paris Oct. 8 

Manila Oct. 8-14 

Geneva Oct. 9-11 

Geneva Oct. 10-11 

Bucharest .... Oct. 12 

Geneva Oct. 14-16 

Geneva Oct. 14-18 

Geneva Oct. 14-18 

Geneva Oct. 14-18 

Washington . . . Oct. 14-19 

Geneva Oct. 14-24 

1 This schedule, which was prepared in the Office of International Conferences on September 13, lists in- 
ternational conferences in which the U.S. Government expects to participate officially in the period October- 
December 1974. Nongovernmental conferences are not included. 

Following is a key to the abbreviations: CCC, Customs Cooperation Council; CCITT, International Tele- 
graph and Telephone Consultative Committee; ECAFE, Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East; 
ECE, Economic Commission for Europe; ECOSOC, Economic and Social Council; FAO, Food and Agriculture 
Organization; GATT, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; ICAO, International Civil Aviation Organiza- 
tion; ICEM, Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration; IHO, International Hydrological Organi- 
zation; ILO, International Labor Organization; IMCO, Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organiza- 
tion; IOC, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission; ISVS, International Secretariat for Volunteer 
Service; ITU, International Telecommunications Union; NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization; OAS, Or- 
ganization of American States; OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; PAHC, Pan 
American Highway Congresses; PAHO, Pan American Health Organization; SEATO, Southeast Asia Treaty 
Organization; UNCTAD, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development; UNESCO, United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; UNHCR, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; 
UNICEF, United Nations Children's Fund; UNIDO, United Nations Industrial Development Organization; 
WHO, World Health Organization; WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization; WMO, World Meteoro- 
logical Organization. 


Department of State Bulletin 

FAO Committee on Commodity Problems 

WMO Commission on Agricultural Meteorology: 6th Session . . . 

FAO Committee on Fisheries 

18th UNESCO General Conference 

IMCO Assembly: 5th Extraordinary Session 

GATT Balance of Payments Committee 

ISVS Council: 16th Session 

ECE Group of Rapporteurs on General Safety Provisions .... 

ECE Group of Experts on Customs Questions Affecting Transport 

IMCO International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea .... 

NATO Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society .... 

OECD Development Assistance Committee (High Level Group) . 

GATT Working Party on Romanian Tariffs 

OECD Maritime Transport Committee 

ITU/CCITT Asian Planning Committee 

ECE Group of Experts on Long Term Prospects for the Steel In- 

ICAO Panel on Route Facility Cost Accounting: 2d Meeting . . . 

ILO Working Party on Structure: 1st Session 

ECE Steel Committee 

FAO Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council 

ECAFE Special Meeting for 2d UNIDO Conference 

FAO World Food Program Intergovernmental Committee .... 

SEATO Council of Ministers: 19th Meeting 

U.N. ECOSOC Policy and Program Coordination Committee: Inter- 
sessional Meeting. 

NATO Senior Civil Emergency Planning Committee 

NATO Civil Communications Planning Committee 

GATT Council 

NATO Expert Working Group on the Middle East and Maghreb . 

NATO Expert Working Group on Latin America 

NATO Expert Working Group on the Far East 

OAS/PAHC Committee III 

ECE Gas Committee 

Western Hemisphere Working Group on Transnational Enterprises 

UNCTAD Committee on Tungsten: 8th Session 

ILO Governing Body and Its Committees: 194th Session .... 

ICAO Special North Atlantic/Pacific Regional Air Navigation 

U.N. Pledging Conference for UNIDO and U.N. Capital Develop- 
ment Fund. 

FAO Ad Hoc Consultations on Tobacco 

ECAFE Committee on Natural Resources Development .... 

CCC Valuation Committee: 65th Session 

U.N. World Food Conference 

OAS/PAHC Permanent Executive Committee: 15th Regular Ses- 

OECD Development Assistance Committee 

UNICEF Special Pledging Conference 

ICEM Subcommittee on Budget and Finance: 29th Session (re- 

ECE Group of Experts on Transport of Dangerous Goods .... 

IMCO Legal Committee: 24th Session 

UNCTAD Intergovernmental Preparatory Group on a Convention 
on International Intermodal Transport: 2d Session. 

OECD Environment Committee: Ministerial Meeting 

ICEM Executive Committee: 46th Session 

UNESCO Executive Committee of the International Campaign To 
Save the Monuments of Nubia: 24th Session. 

ICEM Council: 37th Session 

ICAO Statistical Panel: 4th Meeting 

IMCO Marine Environment Protection Committee: 2d Session . . 

Rome Oct. 14-25 

Washington . . . Oct. 14-26 

Rome Oct. 15-22 

Paris Oct. 15-Nov. 20 

London Oct. 16-18 

Geneva Oct. 21-22 

Geneva Oct. 21-23 

Rome Oct. 21-25 

Geneva Oct. 21-25 

London Oct. 21-Nov. 1 

Brussels .... Oct. 22-23 

Paris Oct. 22-23 

Geneva Oct. 23-25 

Paris Oct. 23-25 

Tokyo Oct. 23-30 

Geneva Oct. 28-29 

Montreal .... Oct. 28-Nov. 1 

Geneva Oct. 28-Nov. 1 

Geneva Oct. 30-Nov. 1 

Jakarta Oct. 30-Nov. 8 

Bangkok .... Oct. 31-Nov. 4 

Rome October 

New York .... October 

New York .... October 

Brussels .... October 

Brussels .... October 

Geneva October 

Brussels .... October 

Brussels .... October 

Brussels .... October 

Caracas .... Nov. 4-7 

Geneva Nov. 4-8 

Washington . . . Nov. 4-8 

Geneva Nov. 4-8 

Geneva Nov. 4-15 

Montreal .... Nov. 4-15 

New York 

Nov. 5 

Rome Nov. 5-9 

Bangkok .... Nov. 5-11 

Brussels .... Nov. 5-15 

Rome Nov. 5-16 

Caracas Nov. 7-9 

Paris Nov. 8 

New York .... Nov. 11 

Geneva Nov. 11-12 

Bern Nov. 11-15 

London Nov. 11-15 

Geneva Nov. 11-29 

Paris Nov. 13-14 

Geneva Nov. 14-16 

Aswan Nov. 16 

Paris Nov. 18-20 

Montreal .... Nov. 18-22 

London Nov. 18-22 

October 7, 1974 


Calendar of International Conferences— Continued 

Scheduled October Through December — Continued 

GATT Meeting of the Contracting Parties 

ECE Committee on Electric Power 

ECE Group of Experts on Construction of Vehicles 

CCC Working Party of the Nomenclature Committee 

FAO Council: 64th Session 

OECD Development Assistance Committee 

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna . 

UNESCO Executive Board: 96th Session 

ECAFE Committee on Statistics 

OECD Development Assistance Committee 

ECE Committee on Development of Trade 

IMCO Subcommittee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping . 

ILO 2d Tripartite Technical Meeting for Hotels, Restaurants, and 
Similar Establishments. 

WMO Regional Association III (South America): 6th Session . . 

CCC Nomenclature Committee: 33d Session 

ICAO Supersonic Transport Panel: 5th Meeting 

Consultative Committee for the Economic Development in South 
and Southeast Asia (Colombo Plan). 

ILO Conference of American States: 10th Session 

NATO Food and Agriculture Planning Committee 

NATO Industrial Planning Committee 

ECE Committee on Development of Trade 

NATO Civil Aviation Planning Committee 

NATO Planning Board for European Inland Surface Transport . . 

U.N. Economic and Social Council: 57th Session (resumed) . . . 

International Olive Oil Council: 31st Session 

NATO Petroleum Planning Committee 

NATO Expert Working Group on the Soviet Union and Eastern 

CCC Extraordinary Session of Finance Committee 

OECD Financial Markets Committee 

3d OAS Inter-American Conference on Radio Chemistry .... 

IMCO Subcommittee on Fire Protection: 16th Session 

ECAFE Committee on Trade 

U.N. ECOSOC Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dan- 
gerous Goods. 

UNIDO Permanent Committee: 5th Session, 1st Part 

UNESCO Meeting of Governmental Experts To Review the Inter- 
national Standard Classification of Education. 

Western Hemisphere Working Group on Transnational Enterprises . 

ECE Senior Advisers on Science and Technology 

ECE Working Party on Road Transport 

IMCO Life Saving Appliance Committee: 8th Session 

ECAFE Committee on Economic Planning 

FAO/WHO Committee of Experts on Nutrition 

ECE Group of Rapporteurs on Pneumatic Tires 

UNESCO/IOC International Coordination Group for Cooperative 
Investigations in the Mediterranean: 2d Session. 

ECAFE Transport and Communications Committee 

OECD Development Assistance Committee 

ICAO Meteorological Operational Telecommunications Network in 
Europe Regional Planning Group: 10th Meeting. 

1HO Commission on Radio Navigation Warnings 

UNESCO/IOC International Coordination Group for Cooperative 
Studies of Kuroshio and Adjacent Regions: 10th Session. 

NATO Defense Planning Committee 

NATO: 54th Council Meeting at Ministerial Level 

UNESCO Bureau of the International Coordinating Council on Man 
and the Biosphere Program. 

Geneva Nov. 18-22 

Geneva Nov. 18-22 

Geneva Nov. 18-22 

Paris Nov. 18-23 

Rome Nov. 18-29 

Paris Nov. 19-20 

Madrid Nov. 20-26 

Paris Nov. 21-22 

Jakarta Nov. 21-27 

Paris Nov. 22 

Geneva Nov. 25-29 

London Nov. 25-29 

Geneva Nov. 25-Dec. 

Buenos Aires 
Montreal . 
Singapore . 

Mexico City 



Geneva . . 



New York . 

Madrid . . 



Nov. 25-Dec. 6 
Nov. 25-Dec. 7 
Nov. 25-Dec. 13 
Nov. 26-Dec. 5 

Nov. 26-Dec. 6 










Dec. 2-4 
Dec. 2-5 
Dec. 2-6 
Dec. 2-6 
Dec. 2-9 

Brussels . . . 
Paris .... 
Rio de Janeiro . 
London .... 
Bangkok . . . 

Geneva Dec. 2-10 

Vienna Dec. 2-14 

Paris Dec. 3-11 

Washington . . . Dec. 9-13 

Geneva Dec. 9-13 

Geneva Dec. 9-13 

London Dec. 9-13 

Bangkok .... Dec. 9-14 

Rome Dec. 11-20 

Geneva Dec. 16-20 

Monaco Dec. 16-21 




Monte Carlo 
Tokyo . . 


Dec. 16-23 
Dec. 17-18 




Department of State Bulletin 


U.S.-Japan Migratory Bird Convention 
Enters Into Force 

Press release 367 dated September 19 

The Convention Between the Government 
of the United States of America and the 
Government of Japan for the Protection of 
Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Ex- 
tinction and Their Environment entered into 
force on September 19 when Deputy Secre- 
tary of State Robert S. Ingersoll and Ja- 
panese Ambassador Takeshi Yasukawa ex- 
changed instruments of ratification at Wash- 
ington. The convention, which was signed in 
Tokyo on March 4, 1972, opens up a new 
field of cooperation between the United States 
and Japan. 

The convention is the third bilateral agree- 
ment regarding migratory birds entered into 
by the United States. The first was with Can- 
ada, signed August 16, 1916 ; the second with 
Mexico, signed February 6, 1936. Both con- 
ventions remain in force. Like the two ear- 
lier conventions, the present convention re- 
flects the expansion of scientific knowledge 
regarding the extraordinarily long distances 
that certain species of birds traverse in the 
course of their migrations and a concern for 
their conservation. 

The convention marks the culmination of 
international efforts dating back to 1960 
when the 12th World Meeting of the Inter- 
national Council for Bird Preservation in 
Tokyo passed a resolution proposing that 
countries of the pan-Pacific area conclude a 
convention for the protection of migratory 
birds. Subsequently, studies were undertaken 
by the Department of the Interior, the Smith- 
sonian Institution, and their Japanese coun- 
terparts. After a meeting of experts of each 
country in October 1968, U.S. and Japanese 
delegations met in Washington in October 
1969 and negotiated a draft convention 
which, with a few changes, provided the text 
for the present convention. 

The convention is designed to provide for 
the protection of species of birds which are 
common to both countries or which migrate 
between them. At present there are 190 such 
species listed in the annex to the convention. 
Included are such endangered birds as the 
peregrine falcon, the short-tailed albatross, 
the Aleutian Canada goose, and the Japanese 
crested ibis and sacred crane. Provisions are 
included in the convention for review and 
amendment of the annex. 

The convention provides that each party 
shall endeavor to establish sanctuaries and 
other facilities for the protection or manage- 
ment of migratory birds. Provisions are in- 
cluded for special protection of endangered 
species of birds indigenous to each country. 
Along with the instruments of ratification, 
notes were exchanged listing such birds. Fi- 
nally, there are provisions for the exchange 
of research data regarding migratory birds 
and endangered species of birds and for the 
preservation and enhancement of their envi- 

Current Actions 


Atomic Energy 

Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, 
as amended. Done at New York October 26, 1956. 
Entered into force July 29, 1957. TIAS 3873, 5284, 

Acceptance deposited: Korea, Democratic People's 
Republic, September 18, 1974. 

Automotive Traffic 

Convention concerning customs facilities for touring. 
Done at New York June 4, 1954. Entered into force 
September 11, 1957. TIAS 3879. 
Accession deposited: Chile, August 15, 1974. 

Bills of Lading 

International convention for the unification of cer- 
tain rules relating to bills of lading and protocol 
of signature. Done at Brussels August 25, 1924. 
Entered into force June 2, 1931; for the United 
States December 29, 1937. 51 Stat. 233. 
Accession deposited: Syria, August 1, 1974. 


Universal copyright convention, as revised. Done at 
Paris July 24, 1971. Entered into force July 10, 
1974. TIAS 7868. 
Ratification deposited: Norway, May 7, 1974. 


October 7, 1974 


Maritime Matters 

Convention for the unification of certain rules with 
respect to assistance and salvage at sea. Done at 
Brussels September 23, 1910. Entered into force 
March 1, 1913. 37 Stat. 1658. 
Adherence deposited: Syria, August 1, 1974. 


International telecommunication convention with an- 
nexes and protocols. Done at Malaga-Torremolinos 
October 25, 1973. 1 
Ratification deposited: Mauritius, June 8, 1974. 

Telegraph regulations, with appendices, annex and 
final protocol. Done at Geneva April 11, 1973. En- 
tered into force September 1, 1974. 2 
Notification of approval: Norway, June 27, 1974. 

Telephone regulations, with appendices and final pro- 
tocol. Done at Geneva April 11, 1973. Entered into 
force September 1, 1974. 2 
Notification of approval: Norway, June 27, 1974. 

World Heritage 

Convention concerning the protection of the world 
cultural and natural heritage. Done at Paris No- 
vember 16, 1972. 1 

Ratifications deposited: Algeria, June 24, 1974; 
Sudan, June 6, 1974. 

Agreement amending the annex to the convention of 
March 4, 1972, for the protection of migratory 
birds and birds in danger of extinction, and their 
environment. Effected by exchange of notes at 
Washington September 19, 1974. Enters into force 
December 19, 1974. 


Agreement relating to payment to the United States 
of the net proceeds from the sale of defense arti- 
cles by Jordan. Effected by exchange of letters at 
Amman May 20 and August 24, 1974. Entered into 
force August 24, 1974, effective July 1, 1974. 


Parcel post agreement, with detailed regulations for 
execution. Signed at Macao and Washington Feb- 
ruary 23 and June 8, 1973. 
Entered into force: August 1, 1974. 


Agreement relating to the application of the rules of 
country of origin to air charter traffic between the 
United States and Switzerland. Effected by ex- 
change of notes at Bern June 12 and July 25, 1974. 
Entered into force July 25, 1974. 



Parcel post agreement, with detailed regulations for 
execution. Signed at Nicosia and Washington May 
7 and June 8, 1973. 
Entered into force: September 1, 1974. 


Agreement modifying the agreement of October 19 
and November 3, 1971, as amended and modified, 
relating to trade in cotton textiles. Effected by 
exchange of notes at Port-au-Prince September 12 
and 13, 1974. Entered into force September 13, 


Convention for the protection of migratory birds and 
birds in danger of extinction, and their environ- 
ment. Signed at Tokyo March 4, 1972. 
Ratifications exchanged: September 19, 1974. 
Entered into force: September 19, 1974. 

1 Not in force. 

2 Not in force for the United States. 

Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: September 16—22 

Press releases may be obtained from the Of- 
fice of Press Relations, Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 

No. Date Subject 

Passport application fee raised 
from $2 to $3. 

Kissinger: remarks at National 
Portrait Gallery. 

Kissinger: Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations. 

U.S. -Japan Migratory Bird Con- 
vention enters into force. 

U.S. journalists tour U.S.S.R. un- 
der exchange visits program. 

U.S.-U.K. aviation agreement. 

Black sworn in as Ambassador to 
Ghana (biographic data). 
*371 9/20 Cooper sworn in as Ambassador 
to the German Democratic Re- 
public (biographic data). 

* Not printed. 

f Held for a later issue of the Bulletin. 














Department of State Bulletin 

INDEX October 7, 197U Vol. LXXI, No. 18U 


Agriculture. A Framework of International 

Cooperation (Ford) 465 

American Principles. Secretary Kissinger Pays 
Tribute to Former Secretary Acheson (re- 
marks at National Portrait Gallery) . . . 482 

Atomic Energy 

Department Discusses Proposed Nuclear Re- 
actor Agreements With Egypt and Israel 
(Sisco) 484 

Members of U.S. Delegation to IAEA Confer- 
ence Confirmed 468 

Bulgaria. U.S. -Bulgaria Consular Convention 
Transmitted to the Senate (message from 
President Ford) 487 

Chile. President Ford's News Conference of 

September 16 (excerpts) 471 


Congressional Documents Relating to Foreign 

Policy 487 

Department Discusses Proposed Nuclear Re- 
actor Agreements With Egypt and Israel 
(Sisco) 484 

Members of U.S. Delegation to IAEA Confer- 
ence Confirmed 468 

Senate Confirms U.S. Delegation to 29th U.N. 
General Assembly 483 

U.S.-Bulgaria Consular Convention Trans- 
mitted to the Senate (message from Presi- 
dent Ford) 487 

Economic Affairs 

Action Program for World Investment (En- 
ders) 477 

Economic Interdependence and Common De- 
fense (Ingersoll) 473 

A Framework of International Cooperation 

(Ford) 465 

Egypt. Department Discusses Proposed Nu- 
clear Reactor Agreements With Egypt and 
Israel (Sisco) 484 

Energy. A Framework of International Coop- 
eration (Ford) 465 

Environment. U.S. -Japan Migratory Bird Con- 
vention Enters Into Force 491 

Europe. Economic Interdependence and Com- 
mon Defense (Ingersoll) 473 

Foreign Aid. President Ford's News Confer- 
ence of September 16 (excerpts) .... 471 

International Organizations and Conferences 

Calendar of International Conferences . . . 488 

Members of U.S. Delegation to IAEA Confer- 
ence Confirmed 468 


Department Discusses Proposed Nuclear Re- 
actor Agreements With Egypt and Israel 
(Sisco) 484 

Prime Minister Rabin of Israel Visits Wash- 
ington (Ford, Rabin) 468 

Japan. U.S. -Japan Migratory Bird Convention 

Enters Into Force 491 

Military Affairs. Economic Interdependence 

and Common Defense (Ingersoll) .... 473 

Presidential Documents 

A Framework of International Cooperation . 465 

President Ford's News Conference of Septem- 
ber 16 (excerpts) 471 

Prime Minister Rabin of Israel Visits Wash- 
ington 468 

U.S.-Bulgaria Consular Convention Trans- 
mitted to the Senate 487 

Treaty Information 

Current Actions 491 

U.S.-Bulgaria Consular Convention Trans- 
mitted to the Senate (message from Presi- 
dent Ford) 487 

U.S. -Japan Migratory Bird Convention Enters 

Into Force 491 

United Nations 

A Framework of International Cooperation 

(Ford) 465 

Senate Confirms U.S. Delegation to 29th U.N. 

General Assembly 483 

Name Index 

Bennett, W. Tapley, Jr 483 

Carmichael, Oliver C, Jr 483 

Enders, Thomas 477 

Ferguson, Clarence Clyde, Jr 483 

Ford, President 465,468,471,487 

Ingersoll, Robert S 473 

Kissinger, Secretary 482 

Kuchel, Thomas H 483 

Percy, Charles H 483 

Rabin, Yitzhak 468 

Scali, John A 483 

Schaufele, William E., Jr 483 

Segel, Joseph M 483 

Sisco, Joseph J 484 

Symington, Stuart 483 

White, Barbara M 483 







Superintendent of Documents 

u.s. government printing office 

washington. dc. 20402 



Special Fourth-Claji Rate 




Subscription Renewals: To insure uninterrupted 
service, please renew your subscription promptly 
when you receive the expiration notice from the 
Superintendent of Documents. Due to the time re- 
quired to process renewals, notices are sent out 3 
months in advance of the expiration date. Any prob- 
lems involving your subscription will receive im- 
mediate attention if you write to: Director, Office 
of Media Services (PA/MS), Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 

3.1. 5' 





Volume LXXI 

No. 1842 

October 14, 1974 

Address by President Ford U93 

Address by Secretary Kissinger Before the U.N. General Assembly U98 


Statement by Secretary Kissinger 505 



For index see inside back cover 


NOV i 6 1974 

UMVtKSlTY Or ILliimoi 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


52 issues plus semiannual indexes, 

domestic $29.80, foreign $37.25 

Single copy 60 cents 

Use of funds for printing this publication 

approved by the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (January 29, 1971). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 

copyrighted and items contained herein may be 

reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 

appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 

the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 

Vol. LXXI, No. 1842 
October 14, 1974 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, provides the public and 
interested agencies of the government 
with information on developments in 
the field of U.S. foreign relations and 
on the work of the Department and 
the Foreign Service. 
The BULLETIN includes selected 
press releases on foreign policy, issued 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements, addresses, 
and news conferences of the President 
and the Secretary of State and other 
officers of the Department, as well as 
special articles on various phases oi 
international affairs and the function* 
of the Department. Information it 
included concerning treaties and inter- 
national agreements to which tht 
United States is or may become a 
party and on treaties of general inter- 
national interest. 

Publications of the Department oi 
State, United Nations documents, and 
legislative material in the field oi 
international relations are also listed. 

A Global Approach to the Energy Problem 

Address by President Ford 

On behalf of the American people, on be- 
half of my home State of Michigan, on be- 
half of the city of Detroit, it gives me a very 
great privilege and pleasure to welcome you 
to the city which some blame for the energy 

But I hasten to add this, if I might: This 
is also a city [to] which we, along with the 
world's other great industrial nations, look 
for significant solutions that I know are pos- 
sible. This is a "can do," a problem-solving, 
city and state. 

It was here in Detroit that the internal 
combustion engine was transformed from a 
plaything of the rich into basic transporta- 
tion on which people all over the world now 

The whole structure of our world society 
rests upon the expectation of abundant fuel 
at reasonable prices. I refer to cities and 
suburbs, farms and factories, shopping cen- 
ters and office buildings, schools and churches, 
and the roadways that connect them all. 

The expectation of an assured supply of 
energy has now been challenged. The reper- 
cussions are being felt worldwide. There is 
widespread uncertainty and deep and serious 
apprehension. Today, at the opening of this 
conference, we are determined to provide 
guidance to a world in crisis. 

Many people became aware that there was 
an energy problem for the first time last Oc- 
tober when the oil embargo was imposed. 

1 Made before the ninth World Energy Conference 
at Detroit, Mich., on Sept. 23 (text from Weekly 
Compilation of Presidential Documents dated Sept. 

October 14, 1974 

But those who were well informed about the 
energy situation had known for some time 
that a crisis was coming. 

With burgeoning demand all over the 
world, they knew that we could not forever 
expect a steady supply of low-priced fuel. 
The embargo merely brought to a head what 
experts had known for many years : that en- 
ergy sources must be expanded and waste- 
ful use eliminated to keep pace with the 
needs of a growing and modernizing world. 

Everyone can now see the pulverizing im- 
pact of energy price increases on every as- 
pect of the world economy. The food prob- 
lem, the inflation problem, the monetary 
problem, and other major problems are di- 
rectly linked to the all-pervasive energy prob- 

The American response to the oil embargo 
and recent oil price increases, along with 
production decisions, has taken the form of 
a program for action under the general title 
Project Independence. This integrated do- 
mestic energy program will seek in many, 
many different ways to reduce American 
consumption and to increase production of 

Officials of my administration will more 
fully describe to this conference our deter- 
mination to achieve energy independence. We 
will take tough steps to obtain the degree of 
self-sufficiency which is necessary to avoid 
disruption of our economy. 

We will make sure there is heat for our 
homes and power for the people who work in 
our plants. Realistically, this does not mean 
zero imports. 

In the immediate future, we will expand 



our efforts to increase our energy efficiency. 
This will reduce the growing dependence on 
foreign petroleum. Project Independence 
will also require us to increase the output of 
existing domestic resources. In mobilizing 
to achieve long-term goals, we will fully ex- 
ploit one of our most powerful natural re- 
sources — U.S. technology. We are moving in 
this direction. 

Last year, for example, the U.S. Govern- 
ment funding for energy research and de- 
velopment was approximately $l 1 / 4 billion. 
This year we will spend over $2V4 billion. 
These funds, together with those provided 
by private industry, will support a growing 
national effort. In terms of joint private and 
public resources, it will mean a commitment 
in excess of the successful one made by John 
F. Kennedy to put a man on the Moon in the 
last decade. I mention this highly successful 
Moon landing to dramatize the magnitude of 
the energy task before us, the dedication with 
which we approach it, and the national mo- 
bilization of attention and talent it will re- 

We are also moving to improve the orga- 
nization of the U.S. Government for carry- 
ing out our energy programs. A key step now 
awaiting final action by the Congress is the 
creation of an Energy Research and Develop- 
ment Administration. It will provide coordi- 
nation and leadership in cooperation with 
private industry in developing the necessary 
technology to fulfill our long-range energy re- 

Even if there had been no political inter- 
ference in the production and distribution of 
petroleum, nations today would still be fac- 
ing the problem of finding enough fuel at 
reasonable prices to continue the moderni- 
zation of our world. Our needs then and now 
for energy are increasing much, much faster 
than our ability to produce it. But in addi- 
tion, most industrialized nations experienced 
the direct impact of the oil embargo, which 
obviously greatly intensified the problem. 

All nations have been adversely affected by 
price increases. When nations use their re- 
sources as political weapons against others, 
the result is human suffering. It is then 


tempting to speculate on how much better 
off man would be if nature had distributed 
vital resources more evenly around the world, 
making every nation self-sufficient. But per- 
haps nature had a better idea; because vital 
resources are distributed unevenly, nations 
are forced to choose between conflict and co- 

Throughout history, nations have gone to 
war over natural advantages such as water 
or food or convenient passages on land and 
sea. But in the nuclear age, when any local 
conflict may escalate to global catastrophe, 
war brings unacceptable risks for all man- 
kind. Now, more than any time in the history 
of man, nations must accept and live peace- 
fully with the fact that they need each other. 
Nations must turn to international coopera- 
tion as the best means for dealing with the 
uneven distribution of resources. 

American foreign policy rests on two ob- 
vious new facts: First, in the nuclear 
age, there is no rational alternative to inter- 
national cooperation. Second, the more the 
world progresses, the more the world mod- 
ernizes, the more nations need each other. 

As you know, a theme of the foreign policy 
of this administration is international coop- 
eration in an interdependent world, stress- 
ing interdependence. You may ask, Why is 
our domestic energy program called Project 
Independence? As I see it, especially with re- 
gard to energy, national sufficiency and in- 
ternational interdependence fit together and 
actually work together. 

No nation can be part of the modern world 
and live unto itself. No nation has or can 
have within its borders everything necessary 
for a full and rich life for all its people. In- 
dependence cannot mean isolation. 

The aim of Project Independence is not to 
set the United States apart from the rest of 
the world ; it is to enable the United States to 
do its part more effectively in the world's ef- 
fort to provide more energy. 

Project Independence will seek new ways 
to reduce energy usage and to increase its 
production. To the extent that we succeed, 
the world will benefit. There will be much 
more energy available for others. 

Department of State Bulletin 

As America expands existing sources and 
develops new ones, other nations will also 
benefit. We especially want to share our ex- 
perience and our technology with other coun- 
tries in efforts to increase their own energy 
supplies. We are also aware that in some re- 
spects other countries are ahead of us, and 
we will seek to learn from them. 

Sovereign nations try to avoid dependence 
on other nations that exploit their own re- 
sources to the detriment of others. Sovereign 
nations cannot allow their policies to be dic- 
tated or their fate decided by artificial rig- 
ging and distortion of world commodity mar- 

No one can foresee the extent of damage, 
nor the end of the disastrous consequences if 
nations refuse to share nature's gifts for the 
benefit of all mankind. 

I told the U.N. Assembly last Wednesday, 
and I quote : 

The attempt by any country to use one commodity 
for political purposes will inevitably tempt other 
countries to use their commodities for their own 

There are three ways, fortunately, that this 
danger can and must be avoided : 

— First, each nation must resolve not to 
misuse its resources ; 

— Second, each nation must fully utilize its 
own energy resources ; and 

— Third, each nation must join with others 
in cooperative efforts to reduce its energy 

In doing so, we emphasize that our actions 
are not directed against any other nations, 
but are only taken to maintain the conditions 
of international order and well-being. 

The quest for energy need not promote di- 
vision and discord. It can expand the hori- 
zons of the world's peoples. I envision a 
strong movement toward a unifying coopera- 
tion to insure a decent life for all. 

I welcome the development in Brussels last 
Friday of a new international energy pro- 
gram by the Energy Coordinating Group of 
the Washington Energy Conference. We were 
pleased to participate in that meeting. 

The 12 nations reached an ad referendum 

October 14, 1974 

agreement on a far-reaching cooperative plan 
to deal with such emergencies as embargoes 
by sharing available oil and by cutting con- 
sumption and using stocks on an equitable 

While seeking conservation, we and the 
other nations will work for expanded produc- 
tion of both conventional and nonconven- 
tional fuels. The cooperating countries are 
also creating an international agency to carry 
out this program. 

The United States welcomes this demon- 
stration of international action rather than 
words. Just as Americans are challenged by 
Project Independence, the world faces a re- 
lated challenge that requires a Project In- 

No single country can solve the energy 
problem by itself. As President, I offer 
America's partnership to every other nation 
willing to join in a common effort to expand 
the spirit flowing from the Washington En- 
ergy Conference. 

A start has been made in Brussels. The mo- 
mentum must be continued if true interde- 
pendence is to be achieved. 

The economy of the world is facing un- 
precedented challenges. Old remedies are in- 
adequate for new problems. New and appro- 
priate solutions must be found without delay, 
and I am absolutely convinced that they will 
be found. 

I firmly believe that the unselfishness of 
all nations is in the self-interest of each na- 
tion. We all depend on each other in so many 
ways that there is no way in today's world 
for any nation to benefit at the expense of 
others, except for the very short term and at 
a very great risk. 

Without having planned it, we find our- 
selves in the strange situation in which the 
most selfish individual can figure out that it 
is profitable to live by what we call the Golden 

We can help ourselves only if we are con- 
siderate and only if we are helpful to others. 

The energy crisis is the clearest example of 
the world's interdependence. The industrial- 
ized nations need the oil produced by a few 
developing nations. And all developing na- 






tions need the technology, the services, and 
the products of industrialized nations. 

The opportunity for a great advance for 
the whole world is tantalizingly apparent, 
but so is the danger that we will throw away 
this very, very rare opportunity to realize 
mankind's hopes. Let us build and implement 
a global strategy for energy. 

If I may, I call on this World Energy Con- 
ference and other international organiza- 
tions to accept the challenge of formulating 
Project Interdependence, a comprehensive 
energy program for the world to develop our 
resources not just for the benefit of a few 
but for all mankind. 

This task is surely monumental. But the 
United States believes that it is possible — 
that it is essential. To help you in the begin- 
ning to take the first steps let me propose 
some principles that could guide a global ap- 
proach : 

— First, all nations must seek to increase 
production, each according to its resources 
and its level of technology. Some can develop 
known and available resources; others can 
try to improve methods of extraction or in- 
tensify exploration, and others are capa- 
ble of developing new sources of energy ap- 
propriate to their own circumstances. But 
all nations can and should play a part in en- 
larging and diversifying the sources of usa- 
ble energy. Diversification can help deter na- 
tions from resorting to monopolistic prices 
or practices. 

— Next, the rate of increase in consump- 
tion of energy must be reduced and waste 
eliminated. Americans will do their part in 
this necessary effort. But all nations can con- 
tribute to discovering new ways to reduce 
the energy we consume, partly through com- 
mon sense, partly through self-discipline, and 
partly through new technological improve- 
ments. Whatever energy-saving methods are 
developed anywhere must be communicated 
quickly to all concerned. Energy-saving pos- 
sibilities are promising, especially for the 
short term as production increases. 

— Third, a cooperative spirit, a coopera- 
tive conduct, are essential to success in a 
global energy program. Nothing, in my judg- 

ment, could be more harmful than policies 
directed against other nations. If we lapse 
into confrontation of exporters on the one 
hand and consumers on the other or an un- 
seemly scramble of consumers being played 
off one against another, all hopes for a global 
solution will be destroyed. 

— Fourth, we must be especially attentive 
to the situation of the poorest nations, which 
will suffer drastically if the energy problem 
does not come under control. Actually, they 
are the chief victims, even now, of the un- 
controlled inflation driving world prices up, 
far beyond their reach, for all the goods and 
all the services they must import to survive. 

— Finally, a global strategy must seek to 
achieve fuel prices which provide a strong 
incentive to producers but which do not se- 
riously disrupt the economies of the con- 
sumer. We recognize the desires of the pro- 
ducers to earn a fair share or a fair price for 
their oil as a means of helping to develop 
their own economies. But exorbitant prices 
can only distort the world economy, run the 
risk of a worldwide depression, and threaten 
the breakdown of world order and world 

It is difficult to discuss the energy problem 
without lapsing unfortunately into doomsday 
language. The danger is clear. It is very se- 
vere. Nevertheless, I am very optimistic. The 
advantages of cooperation are as visible as 
the dangers of confrontation and that gives 
me hope as well as optimism. But good in- 
tentions will not be enough. Knowledgeable 
people, like all of you at this important con- 
ference, are needed to give understanding, 
analysis, technical competence, and solutions 
for the people and the leaders to consider. 

I call on all of you to respond to the chal- 
lenge and to propose to the world your rec- 
ommendations for a global energy strategy. 
Whether you call it Project Interdependence, 
or some other name, is not the essential point. 
What is essential is the challenge be accepted 
and the job be done quickly and well. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I now declare the 
ninth World Energy Conference officially 
open and thank you very, very much. 


Department of State Bulletin 

President Hails Release of Mr. Kay; 
Urges New Efforts on Indochina MIA's 

Statement by President Ford 1 

With all Americans, I welcome the news 
that Mr. Emmet Kay has been released as 
part of the prisoner exchange in Laos. This 
release marks a major positive step in carry- 
ing out the Vientiane accords which ended 
the war in that country last year. We are en- 
couraged by this development and hope it 
will be followed by other positive steps to 
achieve peace and reconciliation in Laos. 

At the same time, I remain concerned 
about the many Americans still unaccounted 
for in Southeast Asia. As Vice President, and 
during my time in the Congress, I had the 
opportunity to meet with the families of a 
number of our missing men. I have the high- 
est regard for the strength and courage these 
families have shown in the long period since 
their loved ones were lost. 

It has now been more than 18 months 
since the Paris agreement on Viet-Nam was 
signed in January 1973. In addition to the 
return of prisoners that agreement contained 
specific provisions on accounting for the 
missing and the return of the remains of the 
dead. The record shows that there has been 
almost no compliance with these humani- 
tarian provisions. Although the Government 
of North Viet-Nam returned the remains of 
23 American servicemen who died in captiv- 
ity, there has been no progress on accounting 
for the missing and no further arrangements 
for the return of the remains of the dead. 

The Communist side has refused to permit 
searches in areas under their control for 
crash sites, graves, and other information on 
the MIA's [missing in action]. We are pre- 
pared to carry out such searches by unarmed 
American teams, and we stand ready to dis- 
cuss arrangements for the conduct of such 
searches by teams from neutral countries, the 
International Red Cross, other humanitarian 

1 Issued on Sept. 18 (text from White House press 

organizations, or by local authorities. The 
important thing is that we get on with this 
job now. 

The families of our men have waited too 
long already, and I am sure that families of 
those of other nationalities who remain un- 
accounted for have a similar desire to know 
the fate of their loved ones. There should be 
no political or military controversy about 
this humanitarian problem, and I call for 
renewed efforts to resolve it. 

AID Donates Additional $3 Million 
for U.N. Relief Fund for Cyprus 

AID Announcement, September 13 

AID press release 74-64 dated September 13 

Daniel Parker, Administrator of the 
Agency for International Development, has 
pledged an additional AID grant of $3 mil- 
lion to the United Nations for relief for an 
estimated 200,000 victims of the conflict on 

The grant is in response to a Security 
Council resolution passed unanimously Au- 
gust 30, urging immediate relief measures 
for the Cypriots, and a September 6 request 
from the U.N. High Commissioner for 

The AID grant to the U.N. relief fund is 
in addition to a grant, relief supplies, and 
air transport provided by AID in recent 
weeks and valued at more than $3,558,000. 
Included were a cash grant of $725,000 to 
the International Committee of the Red 
Cross, tents, blankets, water trailers and 
containers, and cots, as well as several air- 

AID has also responded to a request from 
Ambassador Crawford in Nicosia for two 
relief specialists from AID. AID's Foreign 
Disaster Relief Coordinator Russell S. Mc- 
Clure and AID specialist Bruno Kosheleff 
were to visit Nicosia to participate in an 
evaluation of additional requirements for 
emergency housing, food, and other needs. 



October 14, 1974 


An Age of Interdependence: Common Disaster or Community 

Address by Secretary Kissinger 

Last year, in my first address as Secretary 
of State, I spoke to this Assembly about 
American purposes. I said that the United 
States seeks a comprehensive, institutional- 
ized peace, not an armistice. I asked other na- 
tions to join us in moving the world from de- 
tente to cooperation, from coexistence to 

In the year that has passed, some progress 
has been made in dealing with particular 
crises. But many fundamental issues persist, 
and new issues threaten the very structure of 
world stability. 

Our deepest problem — going far beyond 
the items on our agenda — is whether our vi- 
sion can keep pace with our challenges. Will 
history recall the 20th century as a time of 
mounting global conflict or as the beginning 
of a global conception? Will our age of in- 
terdependence spur joint progress or com- 
mon disaster? 

The answer is not yet clear. New realities 
have not yet overcome old patterns of thought 
and action. Traditional concepts — of national 
sovereignty, social struggle, and the relation 
between the old and the new nations — too of- 
ten guide our course. And so we have man- 
aged but not advanced ; we have endured but 
not prospered; and we have continued the 
luxury of political contention. 

This condition has been dramatized in the 
brief period since last fall's regular session. 
War has ravaged the Middle East and Cy- 
prus. The technology of nuclear explosives 
has resumed its dangerous spread. Inflation 

1 Made before the 29th United Nations General 
Assembly on Sept. 23 (text from Office of Media 
Services news release). 

and the threat of global decline hang over 
the economies of rich and poor alike. 

We cannot permit this trend to continue. 
Conflict between nations once devastated con- 
tinents; the struggle between blocs may de- 
stroy humanity. Ideologies and doctrines 
drawn from the last century do not even ad- 
dress, let alone solve, the unprecedented prob- 
lems of today. As a result, events challenge 
habits; a gulf grows between rhetoric and 

The world has dealt with local conflicts as 
if they were perpetually manageable. We 
have permitted too many of the underlying 
causes to fester unattended until the parties 
believed that their only recourse was war. 
And because each crisis ultimately has been 
contained we have remained complacent. 
But tolerance of local conflict tempts world 
holocaust. We have no guarantee that some 
local crisis — perhaps the next — will not ex- 
plode beyond control. 

The world has dealt with nuclear weapons 
as if restraint were automatic. Their very 
awesomeness has chained these weapons for 
almost three decades; their sophistication 
and expense have helped to keep constant 
for a decade the number of states who pos- 
sess them. Now, as was quite foreseeable, po- 
litical inhibitions are in danger of crumbling. 
Nuclear catastrophe looms more plausible — 
whether through design or miscalculation; 
accident, theft, or blackmail. 

The world has dealt with the economy as 
if its constant advance were inexorable. While 
postwar growth has been uneven and some 
parts of the world have lagged, our attention 
was focused on how to increase participation 


Department of State Bulletin 

in a general advance. We continue to deal 
with economic issues on a national, regional, 
or bloc basis at the precise moment that our 
interdependence is multiplying. Strains on 
the fabric and institutions of the world econ- 
omy threaten to engulf us all in a general de- 

The delicate structure of international co- 
operation so laboriously constructed over the 
last quarter century can hardly survive — and 
certainly cannot be strengthened — if it is 
continually subjected to the shocks of politi- 
cal conflict, war, and economic crisis. 

The time has come, then, for the nations 
assembled here to act together on the recog- 
nition that continued reliance on old slogans 
and traditional rivalries will lead us toward : 

— A world ever more torn between rich and 
poor, East and West, producer and consumer. 

— A world where local crises threaten glo- 
bal confrontation and where the spreading 
atom threatens global peril. 

— A world of rising costs and dwindling 
supplies, of growing populations and declin- 
ing production. 

There is another course. Last week before 
this Assembly, President Ford dedicated our 
country to a cooperative, open approach to 
build a more secure and more prosperous 
world. The United States will assume the ob- 
ligations that our values and strength impose 
upon us. 

But the building of a cooperative world is 
beyond the grasp of any one nation. An inter- 
dependent world requires not merely the re- 
sources but the vision and creativity of us 
all. Nations cannot simultaneously confront 
and cooperate with one another. 

We must recognize that the common inter- 
est is the only valid test of the national inter- 
est. It is in the common interest, and thus in 
the interest of each nation : 

— That local conflicts be resolved short of 
force and their root causes removed by po- 
litical means. 

— That the spread of nuclear technology be 
achieved without the spread of nuclear weap- 

— That growing economic interdependence 

lift all nations and not drag them down to- 

We will not solve these problems during 
this session, or any one session, of the Gen- 
eral Assembly. 

But we must at least begin to remedy 
problems, not just manage them; to shape 
events, rather than endure them; to con- 
front our challenges instead of one another. 

The Political Dimension 

The urgent political responsibility of our 
era is to resolve conflicts without war. His- 
tory is replete with examples of the tragedy 
that sweeps nations when ancient enmities 
and the inertia of habit freeze the scope for 
decision. Equally, history is marked by brief 
moments when an old order is giving way to 
a pattern new and unforeseen; these are 
times of potential disorder and danger but 
also of opportunity for fresh creation. We 
face such a moment today. Together let us 
face its realities: 

— First, a certain momentum toward peace 
has been created — in East- West relations and 
in certain regional conflicts. It must be main- 
tained. But we are only at the beginning of 
the process. If we do not continue to ad- 
vance, we will slip back. 

— Second, progress in negotiation of diffi- 
cult issues comes only through patience, per- 
severance, and recognition of the tolerable 
limits of the other side. Peace is a process, 
not a condition. It can only be reached in 

— Third, failure to recognize and grasp the 
attainable will prevent the achievement of the 
ideal. Attempts to resolve all issues at one 
time are a certain prescription for stagna- 
tion. Progress toward peace can be thwarted 
by asking too much as surely as by asking too 

— Fourth, the world community can help 
resolve chronic conflicts, but exaggerated ex- 
pectations will prevent essential accommoda- 
tion among the parties. This Assembly can 
help or hinder the negotiating process. It can 
seek a scapegoat or a solution. It can offer the 



October 14, 1974 


parties an excuse to escape reality or sturdy 
support in search of a compromise. It can de- 
cide on propaganda or contribute to realistic 
approaches that are responsive to man's 
yearning for peace. 

The Middle East starkly demonstrates 
these considerations. In the past year we 
have witnessed both the fourth Arab-Israeli 
war in a generation and the hopeful begin- 
nings of a political process toward a lasting 
and just peace. 

We have achieved the respite of a cease- 
fire and of two disengagement agreements, 
but the shadow of war remains. The legacy 
of hatred and suffering, the sense of irrec- 
oncilability, have begun to yield — however 
haltingly — to the process of negotiation. But 
we still have a long road ahead. 

One side seeks the recovery of territory and 
justice for a displaced people. The other side 
seeks security and recognition by its neigh- 
bors of its legitimacy as a nation. In the end, 
the common goal of peace surely is broad 
enough to embrace all these aspirations. 

Let us be realistic about what must be 
done. The art of negotiation is to set goals 
that can be achieved at a given time and to 
reach them with determination. Each step 
forward modifies old perceptions and brings 
about a new situation that improves the 
chances of a comprehensive settlement. 

Because these principles were followed in 
the Middle East, agreements have been 
reached in the past year which many thought 
impossible. They were achieved, above all, 
because of the wisdom of the leaders of the 
Middle East who decided that there had been 
enough stalemate and war, that more might 
be gained by testing each other in negotia- 
tion than by testing each other on the battle- 

The members of this body, both collectively 
and individually, have a solemn responsibil- 
ity to encourage and support the parties in 
the Middle East on their present course. We 
have as well an obligation to give our sup- 
port to the U.N. peacekeeping forces in the 
Middle East and elsewhere. The United 
States applauds their indispensable role, as 
well as the outstanding contribution of Secre- 

tary General Waldheim in the cause of peace. 

During the past year my country has made 
a major effort to promote peace in the Middle 
East. President Ford has asked me to reaf- 
firm today that we are determined to press 
forward with these efforts. We will work 
closely with the parties, and we will cooper- 
ate with all interested countries within the 
framework of the Geneva Conference. 

The tormented island of Cyprus is another 
area where peace requires a spirit of compro- 
mise, accommodation, and justice. The United 
States is convinced that the sovereignty, po- 
litical independence, and territorial integrity 
of Cyprus must be maintained. It will be up 
to the parties to decide on the form of govern- 
ment they believe best suited to the partic- 
ular conditions of Cyprus. They must reach 
accommodation on the areas to be adminis- 
tered by the Greek and Turkish Cypriot com- 
munities as well a3 on the conditions under 
which refugees can return to their homes and 
reside in safety. Finally, no lasting peace is 
possible unless provisions are agreed upon 
which will lead to the timely and phased re- 
duction of armed forces and armaments and 
other war materiel. 

The United States is prepared to play an 
even more active role than in the past in 
helping the parties find a solution to the cen- 
turies-old problem of Cyprus. We will do all 
we can, but it is those most directly con- 
cerned whose effort is most crucial. Third 
parties should not be asked to produce mirac- 
ulous outcomes not anchored in reality. Third 
parties can encourage those directly involved 
to perceive their broader interests; they can 
assist in the search for elements of agree- 
ment by interpreting each side's views and 
motives to the other. But no mediator can 
succeed unless the parties genuinely want 
mediation and are ready to make the difficult 
decisions needed for a settlement. 

The United States is already making a 
major contribution to help relieve the human 
suffering of the people of Cyprus. We urge 
the international community to continue and, 
if possible, to increase its own humanitarian 
relief effort. 

The United States notes with particular 


Department of State Bulletin 

satisfaction the continuing process of change 
in Africa. We welcome the positive demon- 
stration of cooperation between the old rulers 
and the new free. The United States shares 
and pledges its support for the aspirations 
of all Africans to participate in the fruits of 
freedom and human dignity. 

The Nuclear Dimension 

The second new dimension on our agenda 
concerns the problem of nuclear proliferation. 

The world has grown so accustomed to the 
existence of nuclear weapons that it assumes 
they will never be used. But today, technology 
is rapidly expanding the number of nuclear 
weapons in the hands of major powers and 
threatens to put nuclear-explosive technology 
at the disposal of an increasing number of 
other countries. 

In a world where many nations possess 
nuclear weapons, dangers would be vastly 
compounded. It would be infinitely more diffi- 
cult, if not impossible, to maintain stability 
among a large number of nuclear powers. Lo- 
cal wars would take on a new dimension. Nu- 
clear weapons would be introduced into re- 
gions where political conflict remains intense 
and the parties consider their vital interests 
overwhelmingly involved. There would, as 
well, be a vastly heightened risk of direct in- 
volvement of the major nuclear powers. 

This problem does not concern one coun- 
try, one region, or one bloc alone. No nation 
can be indifferent to the spread of nuclear 
technology ; every nation's security is directly 

The challenge before the world is to realize 
the peaceful benefits of nuclear technology 
without contributing to the growth of nu- 
clear weapons or to the number of states 
possessing them. 

As a major nuclear power, the United 
States recognizes its special responsibility. 
We realize that we cannot expect others to 
show restraint if we do not ourselves prac- 
tice restraint. Together with the Soviet Un- 
ion we are seeking to negotiate new quanti- 
tative and qualitative limitations on stra- 
tegic arms. Last week our delegations recon- 

vened in Geneva, and we intend to pursue 
these negotiations with the seriousness of 
purpose they deserve. The United States has 
no higher priority than controlling and re- 
ducing the levels of nuclear arms. 

Beyond the relations of the nuclear powers 
to each other lies the need to curb the spread 
of nuclear explosives. We must take into ac- 
count that plutonium is an essential ingredi- 
ent of nuclear explosives and that in the im- 
mediate future the amount of plutonium gen- 
erated by peaceful nuclear reactors will be 
multiplied many times. Heretofore the United 
States and a number of other countries have 
widely supplied nuclear fuels and other nu- 
clear materials in order to promote the use 
of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. This 
policy cannot continue if it leads to the pro- 
liferation of nuclear explosives. Sales of these 
materials can no longer be treated by anyone 
as a purely commercial competitive enter- 

The world community therefore must work 
urgently toward a system of effective inter- 
national safeguards against the diversion of 
plutonium or its byproducts. The United 
States is prepared to join with others in a 
comprehensive effort. 

Let us together agree on the practical steps 
which must be taken to assure the benefits of 
nuclear energy free of its terrors : 

— The United States will shortly offer spe- 
cific proposals to strengthen safeguards to 
the other principal supplier countries. 

— We shall intensify our efforts to gain the 
broadest possible acceptance of International 
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, 
to establish practical controls on the transfer 
of nuclear materials, and to insure the effec- 
tiveness of these procedures. 

— The United States will urge the IAEA to 
draft an international convention for enhanc- 
ing physical security against theft or diver- 
sion of nuclear material. Such a convention 
should set forth specific standards and tech- 
niques for protecting materials while in use, 
storage, and transfer. 

— The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 
Nuclear Weapons, which this Assembly has 

October 14, 1974 


endorsed, warrants continuing support. The 
treaty contains not only a broad commitment 
to limit the spread of nuclear explosives but 
specific obligations to accept and implement 
IAEA safeguards and to control the transfer 
of nuclear materials. 

Mr. President, whatever advantages seem 
to accrue from the acquisition of nuclear- 
explosive technology will prove to be ephem- 
eral. When Pandora's box has been opened, 
no country will be the beneficiary and all 
mankind will have lost. This is not inevitable. 
If we act decisively now, we can still control 
the future. 

The Economic Dimension 

Lord Keynes wrote: 

The power to become habituated to his surround- 
ings is a marked characteristic of mankind. Very 
few of us realize with conviction the intensely un- 
usual, unstable, complicated, unreliable, temporary 
nature of the economic organization .... 

The economic history of the postwar period 
has been one of sustained growth, for devel- 
oping as well as developed nations. The uni- 
versal expectation of our peoples, the founda- 
tion of our political institutions, and the as- 
sumption underlying the evolving structure 
of peace are all based on the belief that this 
growth will continue. 

But will it? The increasingly open and co- 
operative global economic system that we 
have come to take for granted is now under 
unprecedented attack. The world is poised on 
the brink of a return to the unrestrained eco- 
nomic nationalism which accompanied the 
collapse of economic order in the thirties. 
And should that occur, all would suffer — poor 
as well as rich, producer as well as consumer. 

So let us no longer fear to confront in pub- 
lic the facts which have come to dominate our 
private discussions and concerns. 

The early warning signs of a major eco- 
nomic crisis are evident. Rates of inflation 
unprecedented in the past quarter century 
are sweeping developing and developed na- 
tions alike. The world's financial institutions 
are staggering under the most massive and 

rapid movements of reserves in history. And 
profound questions have arisen about meeting 
man's most fundamental needs for energy 
and food. 

While the present situation threatens every 
individual and nation, it is the poor who suf- 
fer the most. While the wealthier adjust their 
living standards, the poor see the hopes of a 
lifetime collapse around them. While others 
tighten their belts, the poor starve. While 
others can hope for a better future, the poor 
see only despair ahead. 

It can be in the interest of no country or 
group of countries to base policies on a test 
of strength; for a policy of confrontation 
would end in disaster for all. Meeting man's 
basic needs for energy and food and assuring 
economic growth while mastering inflation 
require international cooperation to an un- 
precedented degree. 

Let us apply these principles first to the 
energy situation : 

— Oil producers seek a better life for their 
peoples and a just return for their diminish- 
ing resources. 

— The developing nations less well-en- 
dowed by nature face the disintegration of 
the results of decades of striving for devel- 
opment as the result of a price policy over 
which they have no control. 

— The developed nations find the industrial 
civilization built over centuries in jeopardy. 

Both producers and consumers have legiti- 
mate claims. The problem is to reconcile them 
for the common good. 

The United States is working closely with 
several oil producers to help diversify their 
economies. We have established commissions 
to facilitate the transfer of technology and 
to assist with industrialization. We are pre- 
pared to accept substantial investments in 
the United States, and we welcome a greater 
role for the oil producers in the management 
of international economic institutions. 

The investment of surplus oil revenues pre- 
sents a great challenge. The countries which 
most need these revenues are generally the 
least likely to receive them. The world's fi- 
nancial institutions have coped thus far, but 


Department of State Bulletin 



ways must be found to assure assistance for 
those countries most in need of it. And the 
full brunt of the surplus revenues is yet to 

Despite our best efforts to meet the oil 
producers' legitimate needs and to channel 
their resources into constructive uses, the 
world cannot sustain even the present level 
of prices, much less continuing increases. 
The prices of other commodities will inevi- 
tably rise in a never-ending inflationary 
spiral. Nobody will benefit. The oil producers 
will be forced to spend more for their own 
imports. Many nations will not be able to 
withstand the pace, and the poorer could be 
overwhelmed. The complex, fragile structure 
of global economic cooperation required to 
sustain national economic growth stands in 
danger of being shattered. 

The United States will work with other 
consuming nations on means of conservation 
and on ways to cushion the impact of mas- 
sive investments from abroad. The prelim- 
inary agreement on a program of solidarity 
and cooperation signed a few days ago in 
Brussels by the major consumer countries is 
an encouraging first step. 

But the long-range solution requires a new 
understanding between consumers and pro- 
ducers. Unlike food prices, the high cost of 
oil is not the result of economic factors — of 
an actual shortage of capacity or of the free 
play of supply and demand. Rather it is 
caused by deliberate decisions to restrict pro- 
duction and maintain an artificial price level. 
We recognize that the producers should have 
a fair share ; the fact remains that the pres- 
ent price level even threatens the economic 
well-being of producers. Ultimately they de- 
pend upon the vitality of the world economy 
for the security of their markets and their 
investments. And it cannot be in the interest 
of any nation to magnify the despair of the 
least developed, who are uniquely vulnerable 
to exorbitant prices and who have no re- 
course but to pay. 

What has gone up by political decision can 
be reduced by political decision. 

Last week President Ford called upon the 
oil producers to join with consumers in de- 

fining a strategy which will meet the world's 
long-term need for both energy and food at 
reasonable prices. He set forth the principles 
which should guide such a policy. And he an- 
nounced to this Assembly America's deter- 
mination to meet our responsibilities to help 
alleviate another grim reality : world hunger. 

At a time of universal concern for justice 
and in an age of advanced technology, it is 
intolerable that millions are starving and 
hundreds of millions remain undernourished. 

The magnitude of the long-term problem is 
clear. At present rates of population growth, 
world food production must double by the end 
of this century to maintain even the present 
inadequate dietary level. And an adequate 
diet for all would require that we triple 
world production. If we are true to our prin- 
ciples, we have an obligation to strive for an 
adequate supply of food to every man, wom- 
an, and child in the world. This is a technical 
possibility, a political necessity, and a moral 

The United States is prepared to join with 
all nations at the World Food Conference in 
Rome to launch the truly massive effort 
which is required. We will present a number 
of specific proposals : 

— To help developing nations. They have 
the lowest yields and the largest amounts of 
unused land and water; their potential in 
food production must be made to match their 
growing need. 

— To increase substantially global ferti- 
lizer production. We must end once and for 
all the world's chronic fertilizer shortage. 

— To expand international, regional, and 
national research programs. Scientific and 
technical resources must be mobilized now to 
meet the demands of the year 2000 and be- 

— To rebuild the world's food reserves. 
Our capacity for dealing with famine must be 
freed from the vagaries of weather. 

— To provide a substantial level of con- 
cessionary food aid. The United States will 
in the coming year increase the value of our 
own food aid shipments to countries in need. 
We make this commitment, despite great 

October 14, 1974 


pressures on our economy and at a time when 
we are seeking to cut our own government 
budget, because we realize the dimensions 
of the tragedy with which we are faced. All 
of us here have a common obligation to 
prevent the poorest nations from being over- 
whelmed and enable them to build the social, 
economic, and political base for self-suffi- 

The hopes of every nation for a life of 
peace and plenty rest on an effective inter- 
national resolution of the crises of inflation, 
fuel, and food. We must act now, and we 
must act together. 

The Human Dimension 

Mr. President, let us never forget that all 
of our political endeavors are ultimately 
judged by one standard — to translate our 
actions into human concerns. 

The United States will never be satisfied 
with a world where man's fears overshadow 
his hopes. We support the U.N.'s efforts in 
the fields of international law and human 
rights. We approve of the activities of the 
United Nations in social, economic, and 
humanitarian realms around the world. The 
United States considers the U.N. World 
Population Conference last month, the World 
Food Conference a month from now, and 
the continuing Law of the Sea Conference 
of fundamental importance to our common 

In coming months the United States will 
make specific proposals for the United Na- 
tions to initiate a major international effort 
to prohibit torture; a concerted campaign 
to control the disease which afflicts and debil- 
itates over 200 million people in 70 countries, 
schistosomiasis; and a substantial strength- 
ening of the world's capacity to deal with 
natural disaster, especially the improvement 

of the U.N. Disaster Relief Organization. 

Mr. President, we have long lived in a 
world where the consequences of our fail- 
ures were manageable — a world where local 
conflicts were contained, nuclear weapons 
threatened primarily those nations which 
possessed them, and the cycle of economic 
growth and decline seemed principally a 
national concern. 

But this is no longer the case. It is no 
longer possible to imagine that conflicts, 
weapons, and recession will not spread. 

We must now decide. The problems we 
face will be with us the greater part of the 
century. But will they be with us as chal- 
lenges to be overcome or as adversaries that 
have vanquished us? 

It is easy to agree to yet another set of 
principles or to actions other nations should 
take. But the needs of the poor will not be 
met by slogans; the needs of an expanding 
global economy will not be met by new 
restrictions; the search for peace cannot be 
conducted on the basis of confrontation. So 
each nation must ask what it can do, what 
contribution it is finally prepared to make 
to the common good. 

Mr. President, beyond peace, beyond pros- 
perity, lie man's deepest aspirations for a 
life of dignity and justice. And beyond our 
pride, beyond our concern for the national 
purpose we are called upon to serve, there 
must be a concern for the betterment of the 
human condition. While we cannot, in the 
brief span allowed to each of us, undo the 
accumulated problems of centuries, we dare 
not do less than try. So let us now get on 
with our tasks. 

Let us act in the spirit of Thucydides that 
"the bravest are surely those who have the 
clearest vision of what is before them, glory 
and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding 
go out to meet it." 


Department of State Bulletin 


Detente With the Soviet Union: The Reality of Competition 
and the Imperative of Cooperation 

Statement by Secretary Kissinger 1 

I. The Challenge 

Since the dawn of the nuclear age the 
world's fears of holocaust and its hopes for 
peace have turned on the relationship be- 
tween the United States and the Soviet 

Throughout history men have sought peace 
but suffered war; all too often, deliberate 
decisions or miscalculations have brought 
violence and destruction to a world yearning 
for tranquillity. Tragic as the consequences 
of violence may have been in the past, the 
issue of peace and war takes on unprece- 
dented urgency when, for the first time in 
history, two nations have the capacity to 
destroy mankind. In the nuclear age, as 
President Eisenhower pointed out two dec- 
ades ago, "there is no longer any alternative 
to peace." 

The destructiveness of modern weapons 
defines the necessity of the task ; deep differ- 
ences in philosophy and interests between 
the United States and the Soviet Union point 
up its difficulty. These differences do not 
spring from misunderstanding or personali- 
ties or transitory factors: 

— They are rooted in history and in the 
way the two countries have developed. 

— They are nourished by conflicting val- 
ues and opposing ideologies. 

1 Presented to the Senate Committee on Foreign 
Relations on Sept. 19 (text from press release 366). 
The complete transcript of the hearings will be pub- 
lished by the committee and will be available from 
the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government 
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 

— They are expressed in diverging na- 
tional interests that produce political and 
military competition. 

— They are influenced by allies and friends 
whose association we value and whose in- 
terests we will not sacrifice. 

Paradox confuses our perception of the 
problem of peaceful coexistence: if peace is 
pursued to the exclusion of any other goal, 
other values will be compromised and per- 
haps lost; but if unconstrained rivalry leads 
to nuclear conflict, these values, along with 
everything else, will be destroyed in the 
resulting holocaust. However competitive 
they may be at some levels of their relation- 
ship, both major nuclear powers must base 
their policies on the premise that neither 
can expect to impose its will on the other 
without running an intolerable risk. The 
challenge of our time is to reconcile the 
reality of competition with the imperative 
of coexistence. 

There can be no peaceful international 
order without a constructive relationship be- 
tween the United States and the Soviet 
Union. There will be no international sta- 
bility unless both the Soviet Union and the 
United States conduct themselves with re- 
straint and unless they use their enormous 
power for the benefit of mankind. 

Thus we must be clear at the outset on 
what the term "detente" entails. It is the 
search for a more constructive relationship 
with the Soviet Union reflecting the realities 
I have outlined. It is a continuing process, 
not a final condition that has been or can 






October 14, 1974 


be realized at any one specific point in time. 
And it has been pursued by successive Amer- 
ican leaders, though the means have varied 
as have world conditions. 

Some fundamental principles guide this 

The United States cannot base its policy 
solely on Moscow's good intentions. But 
neither can we insist that all forward move- 
ment must await a convergence of American 
and Soviet purposes. We seek, regardless of 
Soviet intentions, to serve peace through a 
systematic resistance to pressure and con- 
ciliatory responses to moderate behavior. 

We must oppose aggressive actions and 
irresponsible behavior. But we must not 
seek confrontations lightly. 

We must maintain a strong national de- 
fense while recognizing that in the nu- 
clear age the relationship between military 
strength and politically usable power is the 
most complex in all history. 

Where the age-old antagonism between 
freedom and tyranny is concerned, we are 
not neutral. But other imperatives impose 
limits on our ability to produce internal 
changes in foreign countries. Consciousness 
of our limits is recognition of the necessity 
of peace — not moral callousness. The preser- 
vation of human life and human society are 
moral values, too. 

We must be mature enough to recognize 
that to be stable a relationship must provide 
advantages to both sides and that the most 
constructive international relationships are 
those in which both parties perceive an ele- 
ment of gain. Moscow will benefit from 
certain measures, just as we will from 
others. The balance cannot be struck on each 
issue every day, but only over the whole 
range of relations and over a period of time. 

II. The Course of Soviet-American Relations 

In the first two decades of the postwar 
period U.S.-Soviet relations were character- 
ized by many fits and starts. Some en- 
couraging developments followed the Cuban 
missile crisis of 1962, for example. But at 

the end of the decade the invasion of Czecho- 
slovakia brought progress to a halt and 
threw a deepening shadow over East-West 

During those difficult days some were 
tempted to conclude that antagonism was the 
central feature of the relationship and that 
U.S. policy — even while the Viet-Nam agony 
raised questions about the readiness of the 
American people to sustain a policy of con- 
frontation — had to be geared to this grim 
reality. Others recommended a basic change 
of policy; there was a barrage of demands 
to hold an immediate summit to establish a 
better atmosphere, to launch the SALT talks 
[Strategic Arms Limitation Talks], and to 
end the decades-old trade discrimination 
against the Soviet Union, which was widely 
criticized as anachronistic, futile, and coun- 

These two approaches reflected the ex- 
tremes of the debate that had dominated 
most of the postwar period; they also re- 
vealed deep-seated differences between the 
American and the Soviet reactions to the 
process of international relations. 

For many Americans, tensions and enmity 
in international relations are anomalies, the 
cause of which is attributed either to delib- 
erate malice or misunderstanding. Malice is 
to be combated by force, or at least isolation ; 
misunderstanding is to be removed by the 
strenuous exercise of good will. Communist 
states, on the other hand, regard tensions as 
inevitable byproducts of a struggle between 
opposing social systems. 

Most Americans perceive relations be- 
tween states as either friendly or hostile, 
both defined in nearly absolute terms. Soviet 
foreign policy, by comparison, is conducted 
in a gray area heavily influenced by the 
Soviet conception of the balance of forces. 
Thus Soviet diplomacy is never free of tacti- 
cal pressures or adjustments, and it is never - 
determined in isolation from the prevailing 
military balance. For Moscow, East-West 
contacts and negotiations are in part de- 
signed to promote Soviet influence abroad, 
especially in Western Europe — and to gain 
formal acceptance of those elements of the 


Department of State Bulletin 


status quo most agreeable to Moscow. 

The issue, however, is not whether peace 
and stability serve Soviet purposes, but 
whether they serve our own. Indeed, to the 
extent that our attention focuses largely on 
Soviet intentions we create a latent vulner- 
ability. If detente can be justified only by a 
basic change in Soviet motivation, the temp- 
tation becomes overwhelming to base U.S.- 
Soviet relations not on realistic appraisal 
but on tenuous hopes: a change in Soviet 
tone is taken as a sign of a basic change of 
philosophy. Atmosphere is confused with 
substance. Policy oscillates between poles of 
suspicion and euphoria. 

Neither extreme is realistic, and both are 
dangerous. The hopeful view ignores that 
we and the Soviets are bound to compete for 
the foreseeable future. The pessimistic view 
ignores that we have some parallel interests 
and that we are compelled to coexist. Detente 
encourages an environment in which com- 
petitors can regulate and restrain their dif- 
ferences and ultimately move from competi- 
tion to cooperation. 

A. American Goals 

America's aspiration for the kind of politi- 
cal environment we now call detente is not 

The effort to achieve a more constructive 
relationship with the Soviet Union is not 
made in the name of any one administra- 
tion or one party or for any one period of 
time. It expresses the continuing desire of 
the vast majority of the American people 
for an easing of international tensions and 
their expectation that any responsible gov- 
ernment will strive for peace. No aspect of 
our policies, domestic or foreign, enjoys more 
consistent bipartisan support. No aspect is 
more in the interest of mankind. 

In the postwar period repeated efforts 
were made to improve our relationship with 
Moscow. The spirits of Geneva, Camp David, 
and Glassboro were evanescent moments in a 
quarter century otherwise marked by ten- 
sions and by sporadic confrontation. What 
is new in the current period of relaxation of 
tensions is its duration, the scope of the 

relationship which has evolved, and the con- 
tinuity and intensity of consultation which 
it has produced. 

A number of factors have produced this 
change in the international environment. By 
the end of the sixties and the beginning of 
the seventies the time was propitious — no 
matter what administration was in office in 
the United States — for a major attempt to 
improve U.S. -Soviet relations. Contradictory 
tendencies contested for preeminence in 
Soviet policy; events could have tipped the 
scales toward either increased aggressive- 
ness or toward conciliation. 

— The fragmentation in the Communist 
world in the 1960's challenged the leading 
position of the U.S.S.R. and its claim to be 
the arbiter of orthodoxy. The U.S.S.R. could 
have reacted by adopting a more aggressive 
attitude toward the capitalist world in order 
to assert its militant vigilance; instead, the 
changing situation and U.S. policy seem to 
have encouraged Soviet leaders to cooperate 
in at least a temporary lessening of tension 
with the West. 

— The prospect of achieving a military 
position of near parity with the United 
States in strategic forces could have tempted 
Moscow to use its expanding military capa- 
bility to strive more determinedly for expan- 
sion; in fact, it tempered the militancy of 
some of its actions and sought to stabilize 
at least some aspects of the military competi- 
tion through negotiations. 

— The very real economic problems of the 
U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe could have re- 
inforced autarkic policies and the tendency 
to create a closed system; in actuality, the 
Soviet Union and its allies have come closer 
to acknowledging the reality of an interde- 
pendent world economy. 

— Finally, when faced with the hopes of 
its own people for greater well-being, the 
Soviet Government could have continued to 
stimulate the suspicions of the cold war to 
further isolate Soviet society: in fact, it 
chose — however inadequately and slowly — to 
seek to calm its public opinion by joining in 
a relaxation of tensions. 

October 14, 1974 


For the United States the choice was clear : 
To provide as many incentives as possible 
for those actions by the Soviet Union most 
conducive to peace and individual well-being 
and to overcome the swings between illu- 
sionary optimism and harsh antagonism that 
had characterized most of the postwar pe- 
riod. We could capitalize on the tentative 
beginnings made in the sixties by taking 
advantage of the compelling new conditions 
of the seventies. 

We sought to explore every avenue toward 
an honorable and just accommodation while 
remaining determined not to settle for mere 
atmospherics. We relied on a balance of 
mutual interests rather than Soviet inten- 
tions. When challenged — such as in the 
Middle East, the Caribbean, or Berlin — we 
always responded firmly. And when Soviet 
policy moved toward conciliation, we sought 
to turn what may have started as a tactical 
maneuver into a durable pattern of conduct. 

Our approach proceeds from the convic- 
tion that, in moving forward across a wide 
spectrum of negotiations, progress in one 
area adds momentum to progress in other 
areas. If we succeed, then no agreement 
stands alone as an isolated accomplishment 
vulnerable to the next crisis. We did not 
invent the interrelationship between issues 
expressed in the so-called linkage concept; 
it was a reality because of the range of 
problems and areas in which the interests of 
the United States and the Soviet Union im- 
pinge on each other. We have looked for 
progress in a series of agreements settling 
specific political issues, and we have sought 
to relate these to a new standard of inter- 
national conduct appropriate to the dangers 
of the nuclear age. By acquiring a stake in 
this network of relationships with the West, 
the Soviet Union may become more con- 
scious of what it would lose by a return to 
confrontation. Indeed, it is our hope that it 
will develop a self-interest in fostering the 
entire process of relaxation of tensions. 

B. The Global Necessities 

In the late 1940's this nation engaged in 
a great debate about the role it would play 

in the postwar world. We forged a biparti- 
san consensus on which our policies were 
built for more than two decades. By the 
end of the 1960's the international environ- 
ment which molded that consensus had been 
transformed. What in the fifties had seemed 
a solid bloc of adversaries had fragmented 
into competing centers of power and doc- 
trine; old allies had gained new strength 
and self-assurance; scores of new nations 
had emerged and formed blocs of their own ; 
and all nations were being swept up in a tech- 
nology that was compressing the planet and 
deepening our mutual dependence. 

Then as now, it was clear that the inter- 
national structure formed in the immediate 
postwar period was in fundamental flux and 
that a new international system was emerg- 
ing. America's historic opportunity was to 
help shape a new set of international rela- 
tionships — more pluralistic, less dominated 
by military power, less susceptible to con- 
frontation, more open to genuine cooperation 
among the free and diverse elements of the 
globe. This new, more positive international 
environment is possible only if all the major 
powers — and especially the world's strongest 
nuclear powers — anchor their policies in the 
principles of moderation and restraint. They 
no longer have the power to dominate; they 
do have the capacity to thwart. They cannot 
build the new international structure alone; 
they can make its realization impossible by 
their rivalry. 

Detente is all the more important because 
of what the creation of a new set of inter- 
national relations demands of us with re- 
spect to other countries and areas. President 
Ford has assigned the highest priority to 
maintaining the vitality of our partnerships 
in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Our 
security ties with our allies are essential, but 
we also believe that recognition of the in- 
terdependence of the contemporary world 
requires cooperation in many other fields. 
Cooperation becomes more difficult if the 
United States is perceived by allied public 
opinion as an obstacle to peace and if public 
debate is polarized on the issue of whether 
friendship with the United States is incon- 
sistent with East-West reconciliation. 


Department of State Bulletin 


One important area for invigorated coop- 
erative action is economic policy. The inter- 
national economic system has been severely 
tested. The Middle East war demonstrated 
dramatically the integral relationship be- 
tween economics and politics. Clearly, what- 
ever the state of our relations with the 
U.S.S.R., the international economic agenda 
must be addressed. But the task would be in- 
finitely more complex if we proceeded in a 
cold war environment. 

International economic problems cut across 
political dividing lines. All nations, regard- 
less of ideology, face the problems of energy 
and economic growth, feeding burgeoning 
populations, regulating the use of the oceans, 
and preserving the environment. 

At a minimum, easing international ten- 
sions allows the West to devote more intel- 
lectual and material resources to these prob- 
lems. As security concerns recede, humane 
concerns come again to the fore. Interna- 
tional organizations take on greater signifi- 
cance and responsibility, less obstructed by 
cold war antagonisms. The climate of less- 
ened tensions even opens prospects for broad- 
er collaboration between East and West. It 
is significant that some of these global is- 
sues — such as energy, cooperation in science 
and health, and the protection of the environ- 
ment — have already reached the U.S. -Soviet 

In the present period mankind may be 
menaced as much by international economic 
and political chaos as by the danger of war. 
Avoiding either hazard demands a coopera- 
tive world structure for which improved 
East- West relations are essential. 

The Evolution of Detente 
Risks and Incentives 

-The Balance of 

The course of detente has not been smooth 
or even. As late as 1969, Soviet-American re- 
lations were ambiguous and uncertain. To be 
sure, negotiations on Berlin and SALT had 
begun. But the tendency toward confronta- 
tion appeared dominant. 

We were challenged by Soviet conduct in 
the Middle East cease-fire of August 1970, 

October 14, 1974 

during the Syrian invasion of Jordan in Sep- 
tember 1970, on the question of a possible 
Soviet submarine base in Cuba, in actions 
around Berlin, and during the Indo-Paki- 
stani war. Soviet policy seemed directed to- 
ward fashioning a detente in bilateral rela- 
tions with our Western European allies, while 
challenging the United States. 

We demonstrated then, and stand ready to 
do so again, that America will not yield to 
pressure or the threat of force. We made 
clear then, as we do today, that detente can- 
not be pursued selectively in one area or to- 
ward one group of countries only. For us de- 
tente is indivisible. 

Finally, a breakthrough was made in 1971 
on several fronts — in the Berlin settlement, 
in the SALT talks, in other arms control ne- 
gotiations — that generated the process of de- 
tente. It consists of these elements : An elab- 
oration of principles ; political discussions to 
solve outstanding issues and to reach coop- 
erative agreements; economic relations; and 
arms control negotiations, particularly those 
concerning strategic arms. 

A. The Elaboration of Principles 

Cooperative relations, in our view, must be 
more than a series of isolated agreements. 
They must reflect an acceptance of mutual 
obligations and of the need for accommoda- 
tion and restraint. 

To set forth principles of behavior in for- 
mal documents is hardly to guarantee their 
observance. But they are reference points 
against which to judge actions and set goals. 

The first of the series of documents is the 
statement of principles signed in Moscow in 
1972. 2 It affirms: (1) the necessity of avoid- 
ing confrontation; (2) the imperative of mu- 
tual restraint; (3) the rejection of attempts 
to exploit tensions to gain unilateral advan- 
tages; (4) the renunciation of claims of spe- 
cial influence in the world; and (5) the will- 
ingness, on this new basis, to coexist peace- 
fully and build a firm long-term relationship. 

An Agreement on the Prevention of Nu- 
clear War based on these principles was 

For text, see Bulletin of June 26, 1972, p. 898. 



signed in 1973.' It affirms that the objective 
of the policies of the United States and the 
U.S.S.R. is to remove the danger of nuclear 
conflict and the use of nuclear weapons. But 
it emphasizes that this objective presup- 
poses the renunciation of any war or threat 
of war not only by the two nuclear super- 
powers against each other but also against 
allies or third countries. In other words, the 
principle of restraint is not confined to rela- 
tions between the United States and the 
U.S.S.R. ; it is explicitly extended to include 
all countries. 

These statements of principles are not an 
American concession; indeed, we have been 
affirming them unilaterally for two decades. 
Nor are they a legal contract; rather, they 
are an aspiration and a yardstick by which 
we assess Soviet behavior. We have never in- 
tended to "rely" on Soviet compliance with 
every principle; we do seek to elaborate 
standards of conduct which the Soviet Union 
would violate only to its cost. And if over 
the long term the more durable relationship 
takes hold, the basic principles will give it 
definition, structure, and hope. 

B. Political Dialogue and Cooperative Agree- 

One of the features of the current phase of 
U.S. -Soviet relations is the unprecedented 
consultation between leaders, either face to 
face or through diplomatic channels. 

Although consultation has reached a level 
of candor and frequency without precedent, 
we know that consultation does not guaran- 
tee that policies are compatible. It does pro- 
vide a mechanism for the resolution of dif- 
ferences before they escalate to the point of 
public confrontation and commit the prestige 
of both sides. 

The channel between the leaders of the two 
nations has proved its worth in many crises ; 
it reduces the risk that either side might feel 
driven to act or to react on the basis of in- 
complete or confusing information. The chan- 
nel of communication has continued without 
interruption under President Ford. 

For text, see Bulletin of July 23, 1973, p. 160. 

But crisis management is not an end in it- 
self. The more fundamental goal is the elab- 
oration of a political relationship which in 
time will make crises less likely to arise. 

It was difficult in the past to speak of a 
U.S. -Soviet bilateral relationship in any nor- 
mal sense of the phrase. Trade was negligi- 
ble. Contacts between various institutions 
and between the peoples of the two countries 
were at best sporadic. There were no coop- 
erative efforts in science and technology. 
Cultural exchange was modest. As a result, 
there was no tangible inducement toward 
cooperation and no penalty for aggressive 
behavior. Today, by joining our efforts even 
in such seemingly apolitical fields as medical 
research or environmental protection, we and 
the Soviets can benefit not only our two peo- 
ples but all mankind ; in addition, we generate 
incentives for restraint. 

Since 1972 we have concluded agreements 
on a common effort against cancer, on re- 
search to protect the environment, on study- 
ing the use of the ocean's resources, on the 
use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, 
on studying methods for conserving energy, 
on examining construction techniques for re- 
gions subject to earthquakes, and on devising 
new transportation methods. Other bilateral 
areas for cooperation include an agreement 
on preventing incidents at sea, an agreement 
to exchange information and research meth- 
ods in agriculture, and the training of astro- 
nauts for the Soviet-U.S. rendezvous-and- 
docking mission planned for 1975. 

Each project must be judged by the con- 
crete benefits it brings. But in their sum — in 
their exchange of information and people as 
well as in their establishment of joint mech- 
anisms — they also constitute a commitment 
in both countries to work together across a 
broad spectrum. 

C. The Economic Component 

During the period of the cold war, eco- 
nomic contact between ourselves and the 
U.S.S.R. was virtually nonexistent. Even 
then, many argued that improved economic 
relations might mitigate international ten- 
sions; in fact, there were several congres- 


Department of State Bulletin 

sional resolutions to that effect. But recur- 
rent crises prevented any sustained progress. 

The period of confrontation should have 
left little doubt, however, that economic boy- 
cott would not transform the Soviet system 
or impose upon it a conciliatory foreign pol- 
icy. The U.S.S.R. was quite prepared to 
maintain heavy military outlays and to con- 
centrate on capital growth by using the re- 
sources of the Communist world alone. More- 
over, it proved impossible to mount an air- 
tight boycott in practice since, over time, 
most if not all the other major industrial 
countries became involved in trade with the 

The question, then, became how trade and 
economic contact — in which the Soviet Union 
is obviously interested — could serve the pur- 
poses of peace. On the one hand, economic 
relations cannot be separated from the politi- 
cal context. Clearly, we cannot be asked to 
reward hostile conduct with economic bene- 
fits, even if in the process we deny ourselves 
some commercially profitable opportunities. 
On the other hand, when political relations 
begin to normalize, it is difficult to explain 
why economic relations should not be nor- 
malized as well. 

We have approached the question of eco- 
nomic relations with deliberation and cir- 
cumspection and as an act of policy, not 
primarily of commercial opportunity. As 
political relations have improved on a broad 
basis, economic issues have been dealt with 
on a comparably broad front. A series of 
interlocking economic agreements with the 
U.S.S.R. has been negotiated side by side 
with the political progress already noted. 
The 25-year-old lend-lease debt was settled; 
the reciprocal extension of most-favored- 
nation (MFN) treatment was negotiated, 
together with safeguards against the possible 
disruption of our markets and a series of 
practical arrangements to facilitate the con- 
duct of business in the U.S.S.R. by American 
firms; our government credit facilities were 
made available for trade with the U.S.S.R.; 
and a maritime agreement regulating the 
carriage of goods has been signed. 

These were all primarily regulatory agree- 

ments conferring no immediate benefits on 
the Soviet Union but serving as blueprints 
for an expanded economic relationship if the 
political improvement continued. 

This approach commanded widespread do- 
mestic approval. It was considered a natural 
outgrowth of political progress. At no time 
were issues regarding Soviet domestic politi- 
cal practices raised. Indeed, not until after 
the 1972 agreements was the Soviet domestic 
order invoked as a reason for arresting or 
reversing the progress so painstakingly 
achieved. This sudden ex post facto form 
of linkage raises serious questions: 

— For the Soviet Union, it casts doubt on 
our reliability as a negotiating partner. 

— The significance of trade, originally en- 
visaged as only one ingredient of a complex 
and evolving relationship, is inflated out of 
all proportion. 

— The hoped-for results of policy become 
transformed into preconditions for any pol- 
icy at all. 

We recognize the depth and validity of 
the moral concerns expressed by those who 
oppose, or put conditions on, expanded trade 
with the U.S.S.R. But a sense of proportion 
must be maintained about the leverage our 
economic relations give us with the U.S.S.R.: 

— Denial of economic relations cannot by 
itself achieve what it failed to do when it 
was part of a determined policy of political 
and military confrontation. 

— The economic bargaining ability of most- 
favored-nation status is marginal. MFN 
grants no special privilege to the U.S.S.R.; 
in fact it is a misnomer, since we have such 
agreements with over 100 countries. To en- 
act it would be to remove a discriminatory 
holdover of the days of the cold war. To 
continue to deny it is more a political than 
an economic act. 

— Trade benefits are not a one-way street ; 
the laws of mutual advantage operate, or 
there will be no trade. 

—The technology that flows to the U.S.S.R. 
as a result of expanded U.S.-Soviet trade 
may have a few indirect uses for military 


October 14, 1974 


production. But with our continuing restric- 
tions on strategic exports, we can maintain 
adequate controls — and we intend to do so. 
Moreover, the same technology has been 
available to the U.S.S.R. and will be in- 
creasingly so from other non-Communist 
sources. Boycott denies us a means of in- 
fluence and possible commercial gain ; it does 
not deprive the U.S.S.R. of technology. 

— The actual and potential flow of credits 
from the United States represents a tiny 
fraction of the capital available to the 
U.S.S.R. domestically and elsewhere, includ- 
ing Western Europe and Japan. But it does 
allow us to exercise some influence through 
our ability to control the scope of trade 

— Over time, trade and investment may 
leaven the autarkic tendencies of the Soviet 
system, invite gradual association of the 
Soviet economy with the world economy, and 
foster a degree of interdependence that 
adds an element of stability to the political 

D. The Strategic Relationship 

We cannot expect to relax international 
tensions or achieve a more stable interna- 
tional system should the two strongest nu- 
clear powers conduct an unrestrained stra- 
tegic arms race. Thus, perhaps the single 
most important component of our policy to- 
ward the Soviet Union is the effort to limit 
strategic weapons competition. 

The competition in which we now find our- 
selves is historically unique: 

— Each side has the capacity to destroy 
civilization as we know it. 

— Failure to maintain equivalence could 
jeopardize not only our freedom but our very 

— The lead time for technological innova- 
tion is so long, yet the pace of change so 
relentless, that the arms race and strategic 
policy itself are in danger of being driven 
by technological necessity. 

— When nuclear arsenals reach levels in- 
volving thousands of launchers and over 
10,000 warheads, and when the character- 

istics of the weapons of the two sides are so 
incommensurable, it becomes difficult to de- 
termine what combination of numbers of 
strategic weapons and performance capabili- 
ties would give one side a militarily and 
politically useful superiority. At a minimum, 
clear changes in the strategic balance can 
be achieved only by efforts so enormous and 
by increments so large that the very attempt 
would be highly destabilizing. 

— The prospect of a decisive military ad- 
vantage, even if theoretically possible, is 
politically intolerable; neither side will pas- 
sively permit a massive shift in the nuclear 
balance. Therefore the probable outcome of 
each succeeding round of competition is the 
restoration of a strategic equilibrium, but at 
increasingly higher levels of forces. 

— The arms race is driven by political as 
well as military factors. While a decisive 
advantage is hard to calculate, the appear- 
ance of inferiority — whatever its actual sig- 
nificance — can have serious political conse- 
quences. With weapons that are unlikely to 
be used and for which there is no operational 
experience, the psychological impact can be 
crucial. Thus each side has a high incentive 
to achieve not only the reality but the appear- 
ance of equality. In a very real sense each 
side shapes the military establishment of the 

If we are driven to it, the United States 
will sustain an arms race. Indeed, it is likely 
that the United States would emerge from 
such a competition with an edge over the 
Soviet Union in most significant categories 
of strategic arms. But the political or mili- 
tary benefit which would flow from such a 
situation would remain elusive. Indeed, after 
such an evolution it might well be that both 
sides would be worse off than before the 
race began. The enormous destructiveness 
of weapons and the uncertainties regarding 
their effects combine to make the massive use 
of such weapons increasingly incredible. 

The Soviet Union must realize that the 
overall relationship with the United States 
will be less stable if strategic balance is 
sought through unrestrained competitive 


Department of State Bulletin 

programs. Sustaining the buildup requires 
exhortations by both sides that in time may 
prove incompatible with restrained interna- 
tional conduct. The very fact of a strategic 
arms race has a high potential for feeding 
attitudes of hostility and suspicion on both 
sides, transforming the fears of those who 
demand more weapons into self-fulfilling 

The American people can be asked to bear 
the cost and political instability of a race 
which is doomed to stalemate only if it is 
clear that every effort has been made to pre- 
vent it. That is why every President since 
Eisenhower has pursued negotiations for the 
limitation of strategic arms while maintain- 
ing the military programs essential to stra- 
tegic balance. 

There are more subtle strategic reasons 
for our interest in SALT. Our supreme 
strategic purpose is the prevention of nuclear 
conflict through the maintenance of sufficient 
political and strategic power. Estimates of 
what constitutes "sufficiency" have been con- 
tentious. Our judgments have changed with 
our experience in deploying these weapons 
and as the Soviets expanded their own nu- 
clear forces. When in the late 1960's it be- 
came apparent that the Soviet Union, for 
practical purposes, had achieved a kind of 
rough parity with the United States, we 
adopted the current strategic doctrine. 

We determined that stability required 
strategic forces invulnerable to attack, thus 
removing the incentive on either side to 
strike first. Reality reinforced doctrine. As 
technology advanced, it became apparent 
that neither side could realistically expect 
to develop a credible disarming capability 
against the other except through efforts so 
gigantic as to represent a major threat to 
political stability. 

One result of our doctrine was basing our 
strategic planning on the assumption that 
in the unlikely event of nuclear attack, the 
President should have a wide range of op- 
tions available in deciding at what level and 
against what targets to respond. We de- 
signed our strategic forces with a substantial 
measure of flexibility, so that the U.S. re- 

sponse need not include an attack on the 
aggressor's cities — thus inviting the destruc- 
tion of our own — but could instead hit other 
targets. Translating this capability into a 
coherent system of planning became a novel, 
and as yet uncompleted, task of great com- 
plexity; but progress has been made. In our 
view such flexibility enhances the certainty 
of retaliation and thereby makes an attack 
less likely. Above all, it preserves the capa- 
bility for human decision even in the ultimate 

Another, at first seemingly paradoxical, 
result was a growing commitment to nego- 
tiated agreements on strategic arms. SALT 
became one means by which we and the 
Soviet Union could enhance stability by set- 
ting mutual constraints on our respective 
forces and by gradually reaching an under- 
standing of the doctrinal considerations that 
underlie the deployment of nuclear weapons. 
Through SALT the two sides can reduce the 
suspicions and fears which fuel strategic 
competition. SALT, in the American con- 
ception, is a means to achieve strategic sta- 
bility by methods other than the arms race. 

Our specific objectives have been: 

1. To break the momentum of ever- 
increasing levels of armaments; 

2. To control certain qualitative aspects — 
particularly MIRV's [multiple independently 
targeted reentry vehicles] ; 

3. To moderate the pace of new deploy- 
ments; and 

4. Ultimately, to achieve reductions in 
force levels. 

The SALT agreements already signed 
represent a major contribution to strategic 
stability and a significant first step toward 
a longer term and possibly broader agree- 

When the first agreements in 1972 were 
signed, the future strategic picture was not 

— The Soviet Union was engaged in a 
dynamic program that had closed the numer- 
ical gap in ballistic missiles; they were de- 
ploying three types of ICBM's [interconti- 


October 14, 1974 


nental ballistic missiles], at a rate of over 
200 annually, and launching on the average 
eight submarines a year with 16 ballistic 
missiles each. 

— The United States had ended its numer- 
ical buildup in the late 1960's at a level of 
1,054 ICBM's and 656 SLBM's [submarine- 
launched ballistic missiles]. We were empha- 
sizing technological improvements, particu- 
larly in MIRV's for the Poseidon and Min- 
uteman missiles. Our replacement systems 
were intended for the late 1970's and early 

— By most reasonable measurements of 
strategic power, we held an important ad- 
vantage, which still continues. But it was 
also clear that if existing trends were main- 
tained the Soviet Union would, first, exceed 
our numerical levels by a considerable mar- 
gin and then develop the same technologies 
we had already mastered. 

The agreements signed in 1972 which lim- 
ited antiballistic missile [ABM] defenses and 
froze the level of ballistic missile forces on 
both sides represented the essential first step 
toward a less volatile strategic environment. 4 

— By limiting antiballistic missiles to very 
low levels of deployment, the United States 
and the Soviet Union removed a potential 
source of instability; for one side to build 
an extensive defense for its cities would 
inevitably be interpreted by the other as a 
step toward a first-strike capability. Before 
seeking a disarming capability, a potential 
aggressor would want to protect his popula- 
tion centers from incoming nuclear weapons. 

— Some have alleged that the interim 
agreement, which expires in October 1977, 
penalizes the United States by permitting 
the Soviet Union to deploy more strategic 
missile launchers, both land based and sea 
based, than the United States. Such a view 
is misleading. When the agreement was 
signed in May 1972, the Soviet Union already 
possessed more land-based intercontinental 

4 For texts of the ABM Treaty and the Interim 
Agreement on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive 
Arms, see Bulletin of June 26, 1972, pp. 918 and 

ballistic missiles than the United States, and 
given the pace of its submarine construction 
program, over the next few years it could 
have built virtually twice as many nuclear 
ballistic missile submarines. 

The interim agreement confined a dynamic 
Soviet ICBM program to the then-existing 
level ; it put a ceiling on the heaviest Soviet 
ICBM's, the weapons that most concern us; 
and it set an upper limit on the Soviet sub- 
marine-launched ballistic missile program. 
No American program was abandoned or 
curtailed. We remained free to deploy multi- 
ple warheads. No restraints were placed on 
bombers — a weapons system in which we 
have a large advantage. Indeed, the U.S. lead 
in missile warheads is likely to be somewhat 
greater at the end of this agreement than 
at the time of its signature. 

The SALT One agreements were the first 
deliberate attempt by the nuclear super- 
powers to bring about strategic stability 
through negotiation. This very process is 
conducive to further restraint. For example, 
in the first round of SALT negotiations in 
1970-72, both sides bitterly contested the 
number of ABM sites permitted by the agree- 
ment; two years later both sides gave up 
the right to build more than one site. In 
sum, we believed when we signed these 
agreements — and we believe now — that they 
had reduced the danger of nuclear war, that 
both sides had acquired some greater interest 
in restraint, and that the basis had been 
created for the present effort to reach a 
broader agreement. 

The goal of the current negotiations is an 
agreement for a 10-year period. We had 
aimed at extending the interim agreement 
with adjustments in the numbers and new 
provisions aimed at dealing with the prob- 
lem of MIRV's. We found, however, that our 
negotiation for a two- or three-year exten- 
sion was constantly threatened with irrele- 
vance by the ongoing programs of both sides 
that were due to be deployed at the end of 
or just after the period. This distorted the 
negotiation and, indeed, devalued its signifi- 
cance. We shifted to the 10-year approach 
because the period is long enough to cover 


Department of State Bulletin 

all current and planned forces but not so 
long as to invite hedges that would defeat 
the purpose of an arms control agreement. 
In fact, it invites a slowing down of planned 
deployments ; further, a period of this length 
will allow us to set realistic ceilings that rep- 
resent more than a temporary plateau from 
which to launch a new cycle in the arms race. 
Future reductions thus become a realistic 

With respect to ceilings on strategic 
forces, we have defined our goal as essential 
equivalence in strategic capabilities. What 
constitutes equivalence involves subjective 
judgment. Because U.S. and Soviet forces 
are different from each other — in number 
and size of weapons, in technological refine- 
ment, in performance characteristics — they 
are difficult to compare. 

Yet in the negotiations we shall, for ex- 
ample, have to compare heavy bombers, in 
which the United States is ahead, with heavy 
missiles, which the U.S.S.R. has emphasized. 
We shall have to decide whether to insist on 
equivalence in every category or whether 
to permit trade-offs in which an advantage 
in one category compensates for a disad- 
vantage in another. The equation does not 
remain static. We shall have to relate pres- 
ent advantages to potential development, ex- 
isting disparities to future trends. This is 
a difficult process, but we are confident that 
it can be solved. 

Numerical balance is no longer enough. To 
achieve stability, it will be necessary to con- 
sider as well the impact of technological 
change in such areas as missile throw weight, 
multiple reentry vehicles, and missile ac- 
curacy. The difficulty is that we are dealing 
not only with disparate levels of forces but 
with disparate capabilities, MIRV technology 
being a conspicuous example. The rate of 
increase of warheads is surging far ahead 
of the increase in delivery vehicles. This is 
why the United States considers MIRV limi- 
tation an essential component of the next 
phase of the SALT negotiations. If we fail, 
the rate of technology will outstrip our 
capacity to design effective limitations ; con- 
stantly proliferating warheads of increasing 

accuracy will overwhelm fixed launchers. An 
arms race will be virtually inevitable. 

The third area for negotiations is the pace 
of deployments of new or more modern 
systems. Neither side will remain in its 
present position without change for another 
decade. The Soviets are already embarked 
on testing an initial deployment of a third 
generation of ICBM's and on a third mod- 
ification of submarine-launched missiles — 
though the rate of deployment so far has 
been far short of the maximum pace of the 
late sixties. 

For our part, we are planning to introduce 
the Trident system and to replace the B-52 
force with the B-l ; we also have the capa- 
bility of improving our Minuteman ICBM 
system, adding to the number as well as 
capability of MIRV missiles, and if we 
choose, of deploying mobile systems, land 
based or airborne. Thus our task is to see 
whether the two sides can agree to slow the 
pace of deployment so that modernization 
is less likely to threaten the overall balance 
or trigger an excessive reaction. 

Finally, a 10-year program gives us a 
chance to negotiate reductions. Reductions 
have occasionally been proposed as an alter- 
native to ceilings; they are often seen as 
more desirable or at least easier to negotiate. 
In fact, it is a far more complicated prob- 
lem. Reductions in launchers, for example, 
if not accompanied by restrictions on the 
number of warheads, will only magnify vul- 
nerability. The fewer the aim points, the 
simpler it would be to calculate an attack. 
At the same time, reductions will have to 
proceed from some baseline and must there- 
fore be preceded by agreed ceilings — if only 
of an interim nature. But a 10-year program 
should permit the negotiation of stable ceil- 
ings resulting from the start of a process 
of reductions. 

Detente is admittedly far from a modern 
equivalent to the kind of stable peace that 
characterized most of the 19th century. But 
it is a long step away from the bitter and 
aggressive spirit that has characterized so 
much of the postwar period. When linked 
to such broad and unprecedented projects as 



October 14, 1974 


SALT, detente takes on added meaning and 
opens prospects of a more stable peace. 
SALT agreements should be seen as steps 
in a process leading to progressively greater 
stability. It is in that light that SALT and 
related projects will be judged by history. 

IV. An Assessment of Detente 

Where has the process of detente taken us 
so far? What are the principles that must 
continue to guide our course? 

Major progress has been made: 

— Berlin's potential as Europe's perennial 
flashpoint has been substantially reduced 
through the quadripartite agreement of 1971. 
The United States considers strict adherence 
to the agreement a major test of detente. 

— We and our allies are launched on nego- 
tiations with the Warsaw Pact and other 
countries in the conference on European se- 
curity and cooperation, a conference designed 
to foster East-West dialogue and coopera- 

— At the same time, NATO and the War- 
saw Pact are negotiating the reduction of 
their forces in Central Europe. 

— The honorable termination of America's 
direct military involvement in Indochina and 
the substantial lowering of regional conflict 
were made possible by many factors. But 
this achievement would have been much more 
difficult, if not impossible, in an era of 
Soviet and Chinese hostility toward the 
United States. 

— America's principal alliances have 
proved their durability in a new era. Many 
feared that detente would undermine them. 
Instead, detente has helped to place our 
alliance ties on a more enduring basis by 
removing the fear that friendship with the 
United States involved the risk of unneces- 
sary confrontation with the U.S.S.R. 

— Many incipient crises with the Soviet 
Union have been contained or settled with- 
out ever reaching the point of public dis- 
agreement. The world has been freer of 
East-West tensions and conflict than in the 
fifties and sixties. 

— A series of bilateral cooperative agree- 
ments has turned the U.S.-Soviet relation- 
ship in a far more positive direction. 

— We have achieved unprecedented agree- 
ments in arms limitation and measures to 
avoid accidental war. 

— New possibilities for positive U.S.- 
Soviet cooperation have emerged on issues 
in which the globe is interdependent : science 
and technology, environment, energy. 

These accomplishments do not guarantee 
peace. But they have served to lessen the 
rigidities of the past and offer hope for a 
better era. Despite fluctuations a trend has 
been established; the character of interna- 
tional politics has been markedly changed. 

It is too early to judge conclusively 
whether this change should be ascribed to 
tactical considerations. But in a sense, that 
is immaterial. For whether the change is 
temporary and tactical, or lasting and basic, 
our task is essentially the same: To trans- 
form that change into a permanent condition 
devoted to the purpose of a secure peace and 
mankind's aspiration for a better life. A 
tactical change sufficiently prolonged be- 
comes a lasting transformation. 

But the whole process can be jeopardized 
if it is taken for granted. As the cold war re- 
cedes in memory, detente can come to seem 
so natural that it appears safe to levy pro- 
gressively greater demands on it. The tempta- 
tion to combine detente with increasing pres- 
sure on the Soviet Union will grow. Such an 
attitude would be disastrous. We would not 
accept it from Moscow ; Moscow will not ac- 
cept it from us. We will finally wind up again 
with the cold war and fail to achieve either 
peace or any humane goal. 

To be sure, the process of detente raises se- 
rious issues for many people. Let me deal 
with these in terms of the principles which 
underlie our policy. 

First, if detente is to endure, both sides 
must benefit. 

There is no question that the Soviet Union 
obtains benefits from detente. On what other 
grounds would the tough-minded members of 
the Politburo sustain it? But the essential 


Department of State Bulletin 

point surely must be that detente serves 
American and world interests as well. If 
these coincide with some Soviet interests, 
this will only strengthen the durability of 
the process. 

On the global scale, in terms of the conven- 
tional measures of power, influence, and posi- 
tion, our interests have not suffered — they 
have generally prospered. In many areas of 
the world, the influence and the respect we 
enjoy are greater than was the case for many 
years. It is also true that Soviet influence 
and presence are felt in many parts of the 
world. But this is a reality that would exist 
without detente. The record shows that de- 
tente does not deny us the opportunity to re- 
act to it and to offset it. 

Our bilateral relations with the U.S.S.R. 
are beginning to proliferate across a broad 
range of activities in our societies. Many of 
the projects now underway are in their in- 
fancy; we have many safeguards against 
unequal benefits — in our laws, in the agree- 
ments themselves, and in plain common 
sense. Of course, there are instances where 
the Soviet Union has obtained some partic- 
ular advantage. But we seek in each agree- 
ment or project to provide for benefits that 
are mutual. We attempt to make sure that 
there are trade-offs among the various pro- 
grams that are implemented. Americans 
surely are the last who need fear hard bar- 
gaining or lack confidence in competition. 

Second, building a new relationship with 
the Soviet Union does not entail any devalu- 
ation of traditional alliance relations. 

Our approach to relations with the U.S.S.R. 
has always been, and will continue to be, 
rooted in the belief that the cohesion of our 
alliances, and particularly the Atlantic alli- 
ance, is a precondition to establishing a more 
constructive relationship with the U.S.S.R. 

Crucial, indeed unique, as may be our con- 
cern with Soviet power, we do not delude 
ourselves that we should deal with it alone. 
When we speak of Europe and Japan as rep- 
resenting centers of power and influence, we 
describe not merely an observable fact but 
an indispensable element in the equilibrium 
needed to keep the world at peace. The coop- 

eration and partnership between us transcend 
formal agreements; they reflect values and 
traditions not soon, if ever, to be shared with 
our adversaries. 

Inevitably, a greater sense of drama ac- 
companies our dealings with the Soviet Un- 
ion, because the central issues of war and 
peace cannot be other than dramatic. It was 
precisely a recognition of this fact and our 
concern that alliance relations not be taken 
for granted that led to the American initia- 
tive in April of 1973 to put new emphasis 
on our traditional associations. We sought 
political acts of will which would transcend 
the technical issues at hand, symbolize our 
enduring goals, and thus enhance our funda- 
mental bonds. Much has been accomplished. 
The complications attendant to adapting 
U.S. -European relations should not be con- 
fused with their basic character. We were 
tested in difficult conditions that do not af- 
fect our central purposes. Today relations 
with Europe and Japan are strong and im- 
proving. We have made progress in develop- 
ing common positions on security, detente, 
and energy. The experience of the past year 
has demonstrated that there is no contradic- 
tion between vigorous, organic alliance rela- 
tions and a more positive relationship with 
adversaries; indeed, they are mutually rein- 

Third, the emergence of more normal rela- 
tions with the Soviet Union must not under- 
mine our resolve to maintain our national de- 

There is a tendency in democratic societies 
to relax as dangers seem to recede; there is 
an inclination to view the maintenance of 
strength as incompatible with relaxation of 
tensions rather than its precondition. But 
this is primarily a question of leadership. We 
shall attempt to be vigilant to the dangers 
facing America. This administration will not 
be misled — or mislead — on issues of national 
defense. At the same time, we do not accept 
the proposition that we need crises to sus- 
tain our defense. A society that needs artifi- 
cial crises to do what is needed for survival 
will soon find itself in mortal danger. 

Fourth, we must know what can and can- 


October 14, 1974 


not be achieved in changing human condi- 
tions in the East. 

The question of dealing with Communist 
governments has troubled the American peo- 
ple and the Congress since 1917. There has 
always been a fear that by working with a 
government whose internal policies differ so 
sharply with our own we are in some man- 
ner condoning these policies or encouraging 
their continuation. Some argue that until 
there is a genuine "liberalization" — or signs 
of serious progress in this direction — all ele- 
ments of conciliation in Soviet policy must 
be regarded as temporary and tactical. In 
that view, demands for internal changes 
must be the precondition for the pursuit of a 
relaxation of tensions with the Soviet Un- 

Our view is different. We shall insist on 
responsible international behavior by the So- 
viet Union and use it as the primary index 
of our relationship. Beyond this we will use 
our influence to the maximum to alleviate 
suffering and to respond to humane appeals. 
We know what we stand for, and we shall 
leave no doubt about it. 

Both as a government and as a people we 
have made the attitude of the American peo- 
ple clear on countless occasions in ways that 
have produced results. I believe that both the 
executive and the Congress, each playing its 
proper role, have been effective. With re- 
spect to the specific issue of emigration : 

— The education exit tax of 1971 is no 
longer being collected. We have been assured 
that it will not be reapplied. 

— Hardship cases submitted to the So- 
viet Government have been given increased 
attention, and remedies have been forthcom- 
ing in many well-known instances. 

— The volume of Jewish emigration has 
increased from a trickle to tens of thousands. 

— And we are now moving toward an un- 
derstanding that should significantly dimin- 
ish the obstacles to emigration and ease the 
hardship of prospective emigrants. 

We have accomplished much. But we can- 
not demand that the Soviet Union, in effect, 
suddenly reverse five decades of Soviet, and 
centuries of Russian, history. Such an at- 

tempt would be futile and at the same time 
hazard all that has already been achieved. 
Changes in Soviet society have already oc- 
curred, and more will come. But they are 
most likely to develop through an evolution 
that can best go forward in an environment 
of decreasing international tensions. A re- 
newal of the cold war will hardly encourage 
the Soviet Union to change its emigration 
policies or adopt a more benevolent attitude 
toward dissent. 

V. Agenda for the Future 

Detente is a process, not a permanent 
achievement. The agenda is full and contin- 
uing. Obviously the main concern must be to 
reduce the sources of potential conflict. This 
requires efforts in several interrelated areas : 

— The military competition in all its as- 
pects must be subject to increasingly firm re- 
straints by both sides. 

— Political competition, especially in mo- 
ments of crisis, must be guided by the princi- 
ples of restraint set forth in the documents 
described earlier. Crises there will be, but 
the United States and the Soviet Union have 
a special obligation deriving from the un- 
imaginable military power that they wield 
and represent. Exploitation of crisis situa- 
tions for unilateral gain is not acceptable. 

— Restraint in crises must be augmented 
by cooperation in removing the causes of 
crises. There have been too many instances, 
notably in the Middle East, which demon- 
strate that policies of unilateral advantage 
sooner or later run out of control and lead to 
the brink of war, if not beyond. 

— The process of negotiations and consul- 
tation must be continuous and intense. But 
no agreement between the nuclear superpow- 
ers can be durable if made over the heads of 
other nations which have a stake in the out- 
come. We should not seek to impose peace; 
we can, however, see that our own actions 
and conduct are conducive to peace. 

In the coming months we shall strive : 

— To complete the negotiations for compre- 


Department of State Bulletin 

hensive and equitable limitations on strategic 
arms until at least 1985 ; 

— To complete the multilateral negotiations 
on mutual force reductions in Central Eu- 
rope, so that security will be enhanced for all 
the countries of Europe ; 

— To conclude the conference on European 
security and cooperation in a manner that 
promotes both security and human aspira- 

— To continue the efforts to limit the 
spread of nuclear weapons to additional coun- 
tries without depriving those countries of the 
peaceful benefits of atomic energy ; 

— To complete ratification of the recently 
negotiated treaty banning underground nu- 
clear testing by the United States and 
U.S.S.R. above a certain threshold ; 

— To begin negotiations on the recently 
agreed effort to overcome the possible dan- 
gers of environmental modification tech- 
niques for military purposes ; and 

— To resolve the longstanding attempts to 
cope with the dangers of chemical weaponry. 

We must never forget that the process of 
detente depends ultimately on habits and 
modes of conduct that extend beyond the 
letter of agreements to the spirit of relations 
as a whole. This is why the whole process 
must be carefully nurtured. 

In cataloging the desirable, we must take 
care not to jeopardize what is attainable. We 
must consider what alternative policies are 
available and what their consequences would 
be. And the implications of alternatives must 
be examined not just in terms of a single is- 
sue but for how they might affect the entire 
range of Soviet-American relations and the 
prospects for world peace. 

We must assess not only individual chal- 
lenges to detente but also their cumulative 
impact : 

If we justify each agreement with Moscow 
only when we can show unilateral gain, 

If we strive for an elusive strategic "supe- 

If we systematically block benefits to the 
Soviet Union, 

If we try to transform the Soviet system 
by pressure, 

If in short, we look for final results before 
we agree to any results, then we would be 
reviving the doctrines of liberation and mas- 
sive retaliation of the 1950's. And we would 
do so at a time when Soviet physical power 
and influence on the world are greater than 
a quarter century ago when those policies 
were devised and failed. The futility of such 
a course is as certain as its danger. 

Let there be no question, however, that So- 
viet actions could destroy detente as well : 

If the Soviet Union uses detente to 
strengthen its military capacity in all fields, 
If in crises it acts to sharpen tension, 
If it does not contribute to progress toward 

If it seeks to undermine our alliances, 
If it is deaf to the urgent needs of the least 
developed and the emerging issues of inter- 
dependence, then it in turn tempts a return 
to the tensions and conflicts we have made 
such efforts to overcome. The policy of con- 
frontation has worked for neither of the su- 

We have insisted toward the Soviet Union 
that we cannot have the atmosphere of de- 
tente without the substance. It is equally 
clear that the substance of detente will disap- 
pear in an atmosphere of hostility. 

We have profound differences with the So- 
viet Union — in our values, our methods, our 
vision of the future. But it is these very dif- 
ferences which compel any responsible ad- 
ministration to make a major effort to cre- 
ate a more constructive relationship. 

We face an opportunity that was not pos- 
sible 25 years, or even a decade, ago. If that 
opportunity is lost, its moment will not 
quickly come again. Indeed, it may not come 
at all. 

As President Kennedy pointed out: "For 
in the final analysis our most basic common 
link is that we all inhabit this small planet. 
We all breathe the same air. We all cherish 
our children's future. And we are all mor- 
tal." 5 


1 For President Kennedy's commencement address 
at American University, Washington, D.C., on June 
10, 1963, see Bulletin of July 2, 1963, p. 2. 

October 14, 1974 


Department Surveys U.S. Policy 
and Developments in South Asia 

Following is a statement by Alfred L. 
Atherton, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Near 
Eastern and South Asian Affairs, made be- 
fore the Subcommittee on the Near East and 
South Asia of the House Committee on 
Foreign Affairs on September 19. 1 

It has been 18 months since my predeces- 
sor, Mr. Sisco, now Under Secretary of State 
for Political Affairs, met with you for a 
similar review of the situation in South Asia 
and of our relations with the nations of that 
region. The period has witnessed prog- 
ress toward regional reconciliation and a 
strengthening of our own bilateral ties with 
individual countries but also a distressing 
deterioration in South Asian economic pros- 
pects, largely because of factors external 
to the region. 

South Asia is an area that has long in- 
volved the concern and interest of the United 
States. The record of our contributions in 
development and food assistance, and of re- 
lief in the case of all too frequent natural 
disasters, is evidence of the strong humani- 
tarian regard of the American people for the 
people of South Asia and their hopes for de- 
velopment. While South Asia is not central 
to U.S. global strategic concerns, it is con- 
tiguous geographically to the Soviet Union 
and China, and their rivalries have an im- 
portant impact on the area. 

Our principal interest in a strategic sense 
has been to keep South Asia from becoming 
an area of great-power confrontation or con- 
flict. We seek no political advantage, nor do 
we wish to impose any economic or political 
system. We look to other powers to exercise 
similar restraint, and with a regard for the 
legitimate interests of others. Within this 
context, we wish to see South Asia develop 
as a region which is characterized by: 

1 The complete transcript of the hearings will be 
published by the committee and will be available 
from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov- 
ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 

— Peace and stability, so that energies 
may be fully devoted to the urgent tasks of 
development ; 

— Balanced relations with outside powers, 
in order that regional problems should be 
settled peacefully in a regional context; 

— Accelerating development, particularly 
in the critical agricultural sector and com- 
plemented by effective measures to reduce 
population pressures; and 

— Over the longer term, meaningful prog- 
ress toward satisfactory regional relation- 
ships resting on the secure independence and 
integrity of each of the states of the area. 

Against this background of what we seek, 
let us look now at the record of what has 
happened. In the recent past, regional trends 
as a whole have seemed to us reasonably 
encouraging from the political perspective, 
while the reverse is true on the economic 
front. Turning first to the good news, the 
process of peaceful reconciliation of regional 
problems initiated by Mrs. Gandhi [Prime 
Minister of India Indira Gandhi] and Prime 
Minister [of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali] Bhutto 
at Simla in July 1972 has again been re- 
sumed. For a period after the Indian nuclear 
test, the Simla process was stalled, but 
Indian and Pakistani representatives re- 
sumed their talks recently with discussions 
in Islamabad September 12-14 on ways to 
restore telecommunications and travel links 
existing before 1971. Last year, with the ac- 
tive participation of Bangladesh, India and 
Pakistan agreed to a massive exchange of 
POW's and civilians stranded by the results 
of the 1971 Indo-Pakistani war and the 
breakup of Pakistan. Over 300,000 people 
were moved, largely in an airlift supervised 
by the United Nations High Commissioner 
for Refugees, to which this government 
contributed $4.55 million. In related develop- 
ments, Bangladesh agreed not to try Paki- 
stani military personnel charged with com- 
mitting war crimes, and Pakistan and 
Bangladesh exchanged mutual diplomatic rec- 

Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India have thus 
taken decisive steps to heal the wounds of 


Department of State Bulletin 

war and to adjust to the new situation cre- 
ated by the events of 1971. The United 
States welcomes these developments. We 
hope that the steps already taken foreshadow 
further advances toward a new era of re- 
gional stability. 

Some developments, however, have aroused 
old suspicions and have had an unsettling 
effect on political relations. Among these 
was the explosion by India of an under- 
ground nuclear device on May 18. This event 
obviously introduced a new element into re- 
gional calculations, although it does not in 
itself alter the balance of power in the area. 
The implications for regional stability and 
the effect on the wider issues of nuclear non- 
proliferation cannot yet be fully assessed. 
Our own position is clear : We will continue 
to support nuclear nonproliferation as a 
fundamental element in our pursuit of world 
peace. We remain opposed to nuclear pro- 
liferation because of the adverse impact on 
regional and global stability. 

A second source of concern has been in- 
creased tension between Pakistan and Af- 
ghanistan. From our perspective, both sides 
seem to desire a peaceful resolution of their 
differences. An effective and constructive 
dialogue, however, has failed to develop 
either in public or in private. The present 
atmosphere is a source of concern to this 
government and to others who are friends 
of both. 

Since the dramatic events of 1971, how- 
ever, it has been the chronic problems of 
poverty, inadequate food supplies, and un- 
checked population growth rather than poli- 
tics that have preempted the attention of 
South Asian governments and dominated 
their relations with the outside world. No 
region has been more seriously affected or 
less capable of initiating offsetting policies 
in the face of the unprecedented worldwide 
price inflation in basic commodities such as 
petroleum, fertilizer, and food grains. Hard- 
est hit has been Bangladesh, where an un- 
precedented international relief and rehabili- 
tation effort mounted after independence has 
not yet proved adequate to create the condi- 
tions necessary for the beginning of solid 

development. Another serious flood this year 
has further exacerbated an economic crisis 
which will engage the attention of this gov- 
ernment and other donor nations at an 
IBRD-sponsored [International Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development] meeting 
next month. 

A generally below normal monsoon, cou- 
pled with decreased availability of fertilizer, 
has also placed Indian hopes for food-grain 
self-sufficiency in serious jeopardy and con- 
tributed to the stagnation and galloping in- 
flation that have dimmed its economic pros- 
pects. Of the major countries of South 
Asia, Pakistan has perhaps managed best to 
moderate the damage of recent international 
economic events. Pakistan's recovery from 
the effects of both civil war and last year's 
flood has been impressive, but continuing 
balance of payments difficulties cause some 

For both humanitarian reasons and in the 
interests of promoting a just and stable in- 
ternational economic system, the United 
States has continued to be an important 
participant in international efforts to en- 
courage economic development in South Asia. 
Since 1971, new U.S. aid commitments, in- 
cluding concessional food sales, to Bangla- 
desh and Pakistan have approached $500 
million for each country. We have partici- 
pated in debt-rescheduling exercises for In- 
dia and continue to discuss the framework 
for a cooperative economic relationship with 
that country. We have small but important 
assistance programs in Nepal, Sri Lanka, 
and Afghanistan. 

Recent developments, however, have 
brought home as never before the point that 
this country on a bilateral basis cannot sub- 
stantially alter the development prospects of 
the nations of South Asia. There is a grow- 
ing recognition that these problems are in- 
ternational in scope and require interna- 
tional solutions. For this reason we have en- 
couraged global conferences on both popula- 
tion and food in a search for new ideas and 
increased cooperation. On an urgent basis, 
however, South Asia also needs substantial 
direct resource transfers of the traditional 


October 14, 1974 


sort, and in this, the burden must be broadly- 
shared, including by those who may possess 
surplus capital as a result of recent oil price 
increases. The development of closer ties, po- 
litical as well as economic, between Iran and 
the nations of South Asia is an important 
demonstration of the potential for mutually 
productive relations between South Asia and 
the Middle East. 

U.S. policy toward each of the countries of 
South Asia through this period has remained 
constant and in accord with our broad range 
of interests that I described at the outset 
above. Thus in the case of India, it should 
have become clear to all over the past 18 
months that we appreciate the importance to 
regional questions which is imparted by its 
power and size. No one should doubt that we 
wish India well. As the Secretary said in his 
confirmation hearings : 

We recognize India as one of the major forces in 
the developing world and as a country whose growth 
and stability are absolutely essential to the peace 
and stability of South Asia. 

In this spirit, we have joined with the 
Government of India in a conscious search 
for the framework of what has come to be 
called a "more mature" relationship. The at- 
mosphere surrounding Indo-American rela- 
tions has improved significantly during this 
period. An important contributing factor in 
this was the agreement on disposition of our 
large holdings of Indian rupees reached ear- 
lier this year, a matter in which we con- 
sulted very closely with Congress. We are 
now engaged in a continuing and serious di- 
alogue with the Indian Government which we 
trust and hope will result in putting our re- 
lationship on a solid long-range footing based 
on equality, reciprocity, and mutual inter- 
ests. This is a goal which we are confident 
the Government of India also seeks. 

The development of better relations with 
India need not be at the expense of any other 
nation. In particular, we intend to retain 
and strengthen our excellent relations with 
Pakistan. The warmth and importance of 
these ties were demonstrated again during 
the successful official visit to Washington in 

September 1973 by Prime Minister Bhutto. 
As we made clear at that time, the sover- 
eignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan 
remain an important concern of our foreign 
policy, as it should of all governments who 
wish to see stability and tranquillity firmly 
established in the area. 

A stable regional system must provide for 
the prosperity and security of all states, large 
or small. We are gratified by the success of 
our efforts to develop good relations with all 
the nations of South Asia : 

— With the new nation of Bangladesh, 
which we have this week warmly welcomed 
as a member of the United Nations, we have 
been generous. The long-suffering Bengalee 
people can be assured of our continuing sym- 
pathy and help. 

— In Afghanistan, our traditional friend- 
ship has withstood the test of a transition to 
a new republican regime under the leader- 
ship of President Mohammed Daoud. 

— We have maintained our warm ties, in- 
cluding a modest assistance program, with 
the Kingdom of Nepal, whose continued in- 
dependent national development we strongly 

— We feel a special affinity to Sri Lanka in 
its efforts to achieve economic development 
while maintaining a vigorous democracy. We 
are heartened by our continuing friendly re- 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee : 
I believe you will agree that our policies to- 
ward South Asia are constructive. We are 
concerned, we are realistic, and we are de- 
termined to play a role which complements 
rather than impedes the natural dynamics of 
the region itself. We place great stock in a 
frank and open dialogue with the leaders of 
South Asia — a dialogue which Secretary Kis- 
singer hopes to pursue when he makes his 
long-planned visit to South Asia. We have 
every confidence that this visit will give new 
meaning and substance to our relationship 
with what we hope will be an evolving sys- 
tem of progressive and peaceful state rela- 
tionships in the region. 


Department of State Bulletin 

Senate Asked To Approve Protocol 
to U.S.-U.S.S.R. ABM Treaty 

Message From President Ford * 

To the Senate of the United States: 

I transmit herewith the Protocol to the 
Treaty between the United States of Amer- 
ica and the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- 
lics on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Mis- 
sile Systems. This Protocol was signed in 
Moscow on July 3, 1974. I ask the Senate's 
advice and consent to its ratification. 

The provisions of the Protocol are ex- 
plained in detail in the report of the Depart- 
ment of State which I enclose. The main ef- 
fect of the Protocol is to limit further the 
level and potential extent of ABM deploy- 
ment permitted by the 1972 ABM Treaty. 
The Protocol furthers fundamental United 
States objectives set forth in President Nix- 
on's message to the Senate of June 13, 1972 
transmitting the Agreements reached at 

The ABM Treaty prohibits the deployment 
of operational ABM systems or their com- 
ponents except at two deployment areas, one 
centered on a Party's national capital area 
and the other in a separate area containing 
ICBM silo launchers. The Protocol would 
amend the Treaty to limit each Party to a 
single ABM deployment area at any one 
time, which level is consistent with the cur- 
rent level of deployment. However, each side 
would retain the right to remove its ABM 
system and the components thereof from 
their present deployment area and to deploy 
an ABM system or its components in the al- 
ternative deployment area permitted by the 
ABM Treaty. This right may be exercised 
only once. 

This Protocol represents a further advance 
in the stabilization of the strategic relation- 
ship between the United States and the So- 

viet Union. It reinforces the ABM Treaty 
provision that neither Party will establish 
a nationwide ABM defense or a base for 
such a defense. 

I believe that this Protocol strengthens the 
ABM Treaty and will, as an integral part of 
the Treaty, contribute to the reduction of in- 
ternational tension and a more secure and 
peaceful world in which the security of the 
United States is fully protected. I strongly 
recommend that the Senate give it prompt 
and favorable attention. 

Gerald R. Ford. 

The White House, September 19, 197 A. 

U.S.-Australia Extradition Treaty 
Transmitted to the Senate 

Message From President Ford l 

To the Senate of the United States: 

With a view to receiving the advice and 
consent of the Senate to ratification, I trans- 
mit herewith the Treaty on Extradition be- 
tween the United States of America and Aus- 
tralia, signed at Washington on May 14, 
1974. I transmit also, for the information of 
the Senate, the report of the Department 
of State with respect to the Treaty. 

The Treaty will, upon entry into force, 
terminate, as between the United States and 
Australia, the Treaty on Extradition between 
the United States and Great Britain of De- 
cember 22, 1931, as made applicable to Aus- 
tralia. This new Treaty represents a sub- 
stantial modernization with respect to the 
procedural aspects of extradition. 

The Treaty includes in the list of extradit- 
able offenses several which are of prime in- 
ternational concern, such as aircraft hijack- 
ing, narcotics offenses, and conspiracy to 
commit listed offenses. 

1 Transmitted on Sept. 19 (text from White House 
press release) ; also printed as S. Ex. I., 93d Cong., 
2d sess., which includes the texts of the protocol and 
the report of the Department of State. 

1 Transmitted on Aug. 22 (text from White House 
press release); also printed as S. Ex. F, 93d Cong., 
2d sess., which includes the text of the treaty and 
the report of the Department of State. 

October 14, 1974 


The Treaty will make a significant con- 
tribution to the international effort to control 
narcotics traffic. I recommend that the Sen- 
ate give early and favorable consideration to 
the Treaty and give its advice and consent 
to ratification. 

Gerald R. Ford. 

The White House, August 22, 197 U. 


Accession deposited: Czechoslovakia, April 10, 

Acceptance deposited: Italy, September 10, 1974. 


Bahamas, The 

Agreement relating to pre-sunrise operation of cer- 
tain standard broadcasting stations. Effected by 
exchange of notes at Nassau January 30 and Sep- 
tember 4, 1974. Entered into force September 4, 


Agreement amending the agreement for sales of ag- 
ricultural commodities of June 7, 1974 (TIAS 
7855). Effected by exchange of notes at Cairo 
September 11 and 12, 1974. Entered into force 
September 12, 1974. 

Current Actions 



Convention establishing a Customs Cooperation 
Council, with annex. Done at Brussels December 
15, 1950. Entered into force November 4, 1952; 
for the United States November 5, 1970. TIAS 
Accession deposited: Bahamas, August 16, 1974. 

Satellite Communications System 

Agreement relating to the International Telecom- 
munications Satellite Organization (Intelsat), with 
annexes. Done at Washington August 20, 1971. 
Entered into force February 12, 1973. TIAS 7532. 
Ratification deposited: Turkey, September 26, 1974. 

Sea, Exploration of 

Protocol to the convention of September 12, 1964 
(TIAS 7628), for the International Council for the 
Exploration of the Sea. Done at Copenhagen Au- 
gust 13, 1970. 1 
Ratified by the President: September 18, 1974. 

Seals — Antarctic 

Convention for the conservation of Antarctic seals, 
with annex and final act. Done at London June 1, 
1972. 1 

Ratification deposited: United Kingdom, Septem- 
ber 10, 1974. a 

Tonnage Measurement 

International convention on tonnage measurement 
for ships, 1969, with annexes. Done at London 
June 23, 1969. 1 

1 Not in force. 

2 Extended to Channel Islands and Isle of Man. 


Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: September 23-29 

Press releases may be obtained from the Of- 
fice of Press Relations, Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 

Release issued prior to September 19 which 
appears in this issue of the Bulletin is No. 366 
of September 19. 

No. Data Subject 

f372 9/23 "Foreign Relations" volume on 
Council on Foreign Ministers; 
Germany and Austria; 1948 
(for release Sept. 30). 

Kissinger: U.N. General Assem- 

Study Group 5 of the U.S. Na- 
tional Committee for the CCIR, 
Boulder, Colo., Oct. 18. 

Study Group 6 of the U.S. Na- 
tional Committee for the CCIR, 
Boulder, Colo., Oct. 18. 

Program for the state visit of Ital- 
ian President Giovanni Leone, 
Sept. 24-29. 

North Atlantic airfare negotia- 

Kissinger, Leone: exchange of 
toasts, Sept. 25. 

Study Group 4 of the U.S. Na- 
tional Committee for the CCIR, 
Oct. 24. 

Regional foreign policy confer- 
ence, Chicago, Oct. 16. 

Habib sworn in as Assistant Sec- 
retary for East Asian and Pa- 
cific Affairs (biographic data). 
1382 9/27 U.S. and Jordan sign nonsched- 
uled air service agreement (re- 

* Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the Bulletin. 



















Department of State Bulletin 

INDEX October 1U, 197 U Vol. LXXI, No. 18U2 

Afghanistan. Department Surveys U.S. Policy 

and Developments in South Asia (Atherton) 520 

Africa. An Age of Interdependence: Common 
Disaster or Community (Kissinger) . . . 498 


Department Surveys U.S. Policy and Develop- 
ments in South Asia (Atherton) 520 

President Hails Release of Mr. Kay; Urges 
New Efforts on Indochina MIA's (statement) 497 

Atomic Energy. An Age of Interdependence: 
Common Disaster or Community (Kissinger) 498 

Australia. U.S.-Australia Extradition Treaty 
Transmitted to the Senate (message from 
President Ford) 523 

Bangladesh. Department Surveys U.S. Policy 

and Developments in South Asia (Atherton) 520 


Department Surveys U.S. Policy and Develop- 
ments in South Asia (Atherton) 520 

Detente With the Soviet Union: The Reality 
of Competition and the Imperative of Coop- 
eration (Kissinger) 505 

Senate Asked To Approve Protocol to U.S.- 
U.S.S.R. ABM Treaty (message from Presi- 
dent Ford) 523 

U.S.-Australia Extradition Treaty Transmitted 
to the Senate (message from President Ford) 523 


An Age of Interdependence : Common Disaster 

or Community (Kissinger) 498 

AID Donates Additional $3 Million for U.N. 

Relief Fund for Cyprus 497 


Detente With the Soviet Union: The Reality 
of Competition and the Imperative of Coop- 
eration (Kissinger) 505 

Senate Asked To Approve Protocol to U.S.- 
U.S.S.R. ABM Treaty (message from Presi- 
dent Ford) 523 

Economic Affairs 

An Age of Interdependence: Common Disaster 
or Community (Kissinger) 498 

Detente With the Soviet Union: The Reality 
of Competition and the Imperative of Coop- 
eration (Kissinger) 505 


An Age of Interdependence : Common Disaster 

or Community (Kissinger) 498 

A Global Approach to the Energy Problem 

(Ford) 493 

Extradition. U.S.-Australia Extradition Treaty 
Transmitted to the Senate (message from 
President Ford) 523 

Food. An Age of Interdependence: Common 

Disaster or Community (Kissinger) . . . 498 

Foreign Aid. AID Donates Additional $3 Mil- 
lion for U.N. Relief Fund for Cyprus ... 497 

India. Department Surveys U.S. Policy and 

Developments in South Asia (Atherton) . . 520 

Laos. President Hails Release of Mr. Kay; 
Urges New Efforts on Indochina MIA's 
(statement) 497 

Middle East. An Age of Interdependence: 

Common Disaster or Community (Kissinger) 498 

Nepal. Department Surveys U.S. Policy and 

Developments in South Asia (Atherton) . . 520 

Pakistan. Department Surveys U.S. Policy and 

Developments in South Asia (Atherton) . . 520 

Presidential Documents 

A Global Approach to the Energy Problem . . 493 
President Hails Release of Mr. Kay; Urges 

New Efforts on Indochina MIA's .... 497 
Senate Asked To Approve Protocol to U.S.- 

U.S.S.R. ABM Treaty 523 

U.S.-Australia Extradition Treaty Transmitted 

to the Senate 523 

Sri Lanka. Department Surveys U.S. Policy 
and Developments in South Asia (Atherton) 520 

Treaty Information 

Current Actions 524 

Senate Asked To Approve Protocol to U.S.- 
U.S.S.R. ABM Treaty (message from Presi- 
dent Ford) 523 


Detente With the Soviet Union: The Reality 
of Competition and the Imperative of Coop- 
eration (Kissinger) 505 

Senate Asked To Approve Protocol to U.S.- 
U.S.S.R. ABM Treaty (message from Presi- 
dent Ford) 523 

United Nations 

An Age of Interdependence: Common Disaster 

or Community (Kissinger) 498 

AID Donates Additional $3 Million for U.N. 

Relief Fund for Cyprus 497 

Viet-Nam. President Hails Release of Mr. 
Kay; Urges New Efforts on Indochina MIA's 
(statement) 497 

Name Index 

Atherton, Alfred L., Jr 520 

Ford, President 493,497,523 

Kissinger, Secretary 498, 505 






Superintendent of Documents 

u.s. government printing office 

washington. dc. 20402 



Special Fourth-Clan Rale 


mm it ^ oi 

n i 

Subscription Renewals: To insure uninterrupted 
service, please renew your subscription promptly 
when you receive the expiration notice from the 
Superintendent of Documents. Due to the time re- 
quired to process renewals, notices are sent out 3 
months in advance of the expiration date. Any prob- 
lems involving your subscription will receive im- 
mediate attention if you write to: Director, Office 
of Media Services (PA/MS), Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 





Volume LXXI 

No. 1843 

October 21, 1974 



Transcript of News Conference 525 


Address by Fred C. Ikle 
Director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency 543 


For index see inside back cover 


DEC- 6 . 19 





Vol. LXXI, No. 1843 
October 21, 1974 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


52 issues plus semiannual Indexes, 

domestic $29.80, foreign $37.25 

Single copy 60 cents 

Use of funds for printing this publication 

approved by the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (January 29, 1971). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 

copyrighted and items contained herein may be 

reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 

appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 

the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, provides the public and 
interested agencies of the government 
with information on developments in 
the field of U.S. foreign relations and 
on the work of the Department and 
the Foreign Service. 
The BULLETIN includes selected 
press releases on foreign policy, issued 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements, addresses, 
and news conferences of the President 
and the Secretary of State and other 
officers of the Department, as well as 
special articles on various phases of 
international affairs and the functions 
of the Department. Information is 
included concerning treaties and inter- 
national agreements to which the 
United States is or may become a 
party and on treaties of general inter- 
national interest. 

Publications of the Department of 
State, United Nations documents, and 
legislative material in the field of 
international relations are also listed. 

Assistant Secretary Enders Outlines Draft Agreement 
Reached by Energy Coordinating Group 

The Energy Coordinating Group (ECG) 
established by the Washington Energy Con- 
ference in February met at Brussels Septem- 
ber 19-20. Following is the transcript of a 
news conference held at the Department of 
State on September 23 by Thomas 0. Enders, 
Assistant Secretary for Economic and Busi- 
ness Affairs, who headed the U.S. delegation 
to the Brussels meeting. 

I thought it would be useful to come down 
here and talk very briefly and then answer 
questions about the agreement which has 
been reached in Brussels among the 12 ECG 
countries — that is to say, the European Com- 
munity less France, Norway, Japan, the 
United States, and Canada — and which is 
now being submitted to governments for 
their consideration, their constitutional pro- 
cedures, and approval. 

This is a far-reaching agreement and a 
far-reaching expression of solidarity among 
the consuming countries. If it is approved by 
governments, as we expect it will be, it will 
form a very strong basis of cooperation in 
the energy field among a wide range of in- 
dustrialized countries. 

As such, we regard it as a very important 
step forward and a very important conse- 
quence of the Washington Energy Confer- 
ence, which launched this cooperative work. 

I would like to go into some detail on the 
provisions that it contains. Let me say a 
word about the substance and then a word 
about the procedure. 

On the substance: I think the basic per- 
ception in this agreement is that the consum- 
ing countries need first to express their soli- 
darity by determining what each would do 
in a new oil emergency and how each would 

support the oil security of the group as a 
whole before they can fruitfully go on to 
other, more positive — eventually dominant — 
elements of the energy situation, which in- 
clude major joint actions to conserve energy 
and thereby lower the net imports of the 
group as a whole ; research and development ; 
the development of alternative supplies, 
thereby increasing the output of energy in 
the group as a whole and decreasing net im- 
ports and therefore vulnerability. 

This should create a situation in which the 
demand for and dependence on imported oil 
for the group as a whole will significantly 
diminish from what it is now. 

Now, in contingency planning, the basic 
principle here is that each country in the 
group must share on an equitable basis in 
the preparation for a new emergency. That 
means that everybody must stockpile oil to 
cover their imports on the same basis. And 
the agreement sets a target of 90 days. We 
are very substantially below that in many 
countries now. This means a major commit- 
ment on the part of Japan and Western Eu- 
rope — also to some degree on the part of the 
United States — to carry stocks equivalent to 
90 days of imports. 

The second thing is that all the countries 
agree to take similar actions in a new emer- 
gency to curtail oil consumption. This is 
complicated, and I will be glad to go into 
it. But basically what it says is that at cer- 
tain levels of shortfall a given consumption 
cut will take place, and when the shortfall 
gets deeper, another level of common con- 
sumption cutback will be called for. Then, 
beyond a certain point, where no figures are 
foreseen, but where we get into a very se- 
vere crisis indeed, going toward cutbacks of 






tf l 



October 21, 1974 



30 or 40 percent of available oil, then there 
is a strong commitment in the agreement to 
take all necessary further restrictions in de- 
mand and other actions to assure the security 
of the group. 

So, this is a process which at the outset 
contains a series of very specific commit- 
ments for the kind of crisis that we had to 
face this past winter and a further general 
commitment for more serious crises should 
they develop. 

Thirdly, there is a formula for sharing oil 
which is constructed as a function of the first 
two commitments in stockpiling and in con- 
sumption cutbacks. What it does is basically 
assure that available oil is sorted out as a 
function of the first two commitments, so 
that all countries use their oil stocks, their 
security provisions, in effect, at about the 
same rate and no country will run out of oil 
sooner than any other. 

To express this basic contingency plan, the 
12 countries have tentatively agreed that they 
should have a new institution which would be 
an international energy agency, an autono- 
mous institution to be constructed within the 
framework of the OECD [Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development], 
having its own governing council at minis- 
terial level and its own secretariat. 

They have agreed on a series of decision- 
making provisions which are important and 
represent a significant innovation in inter- 
national decisionmaking. They provide, in 
the case of action to overcome an oil contin- 
gency, a very strong presumption of action. 
That is to say, once a given shortfall of oil 
is identified, this shortfall would create a 
presumption — in effect would trigger the 
commitments to demand restraint and to 
sharing, unless a very strong majority of 
the countries in the group were to vote to 
overturn it. That strong majority must be 
expressed in terms of both a large number 
of the countries involved and countries rep- 
resenting a large majority of the oil con- 
sumption of the group. It would take, in ef- 
fect, 60 percent of the weighted votes, and 
the weighting is calculated in such a manner 
that out of a total of 136 votes of the group, 

oil votes weighted on consumption count for 
100 with the remainder allocated three per 

This voting system is complex in its exe- 
cution but relatively simple in its concept, 
and the idea is that there should be a very 
strong presumption that this machinery 
comes into effect in a crisis. 

Another aspect of that voting machinery 
is that it also can be used for all of the or- 
dinary business of the group, so that the 
ability of the group to interpret its under- 
takings, to act on what it thinks its basic 
agreement means — and this is a carefully 
written agreement which runs now to 82 ar- 
ticles and is quite fully laid out — should also 
be very strong. 

Now, thirdly, with regard to the contin- 
gency plan itself, there is provision for both 
protection against a general embargo affect- 
ing the group as a whole and for protection 
against a selective embargo, which might 
target one or two countries, as the United 
States and Holland were targeted last win- 
ter. This provision also creates a strong pre- 
sumption of action, once the shortfall is iden- 
tified. This, too, could be overturned, but only 
by a very strong majority vote. In this case, 
it would require 10 countries. 

I should note that because of the structure 
of the American oil market, with most of the 
imports coming into the east coast — and this 
is also true of Canada — there is a separate 
provision that this selective trigger can be 
used in regard to a regional market of a 
given country, as well as to the national 
market. So there is, in effect, built-in protec- 
tion for the east coast of the United States 
and the east coast of Canada. 

Now, this contingency plan is the heart of 
the international energy program which has 
been agreed at this stage, but does not ex- 
haust it and is regarded as a first stage. 

The plan now contains the following other 
elements : 

— One, a broad program of cooperative re- 
search and development which is to be guided 
by the new energy agency and undertaken 
partly on the basis of national groupings 


Department of State Bulletin 

with one individual member in the lead and 
partly on the basis of cooperative research to 
be done through the OECD itself by, if not 
by the whole group, by any collection of 
countries in the group. 

— Secondly, there will be a broad program 
of conservation which is to be undertaken by 
this group. They will attempt to develop in 
the group national policies which will assist 
conservation in each country through an ex- 
change of information and the identification 
of priorities. 

— Thirdly, we expect to concentrate on 
some specific problem such as nuclear en- 
richment — how to provide the nuclear en- 
richment services which will be required for 
the group as a whole in the course of the 
next 15 or 20 years by the location and de- 
velopment of additional nuclear enrichment 

— Fourthly, we expect to have under this 
program a broad new effort at predicting the 
demand and supply for energy, in an effort 
to put planning on a surer footing than it 
now is. 

Now, turning to the procedure, as I say, 
this agreement is a tentative agreement. It 
is, in technical jargon, an agreement "with- 
out brackets" — without reservations on the 
part of national delegations. It is submitted 
now for formal consideration and decision 
by member governments. Many of them will 
be talking to their parliaments. We have 
talked already quite broadly on the Hill but 
will expect to do more of that now. 

This undertaking will be open to new mem- 
bers, provided they are also members of the 
Organization for Economic Development and 
Cooperation, the OECD. And toward the end 
of October, we expect to be initialing this 
agreement, bringing it provisionally into 
force. We expect that in the course of No- 
vember there will be a decision by the OECD 
as to whether or not they wish to accept this 
organization in their framework, and subse- 
quently, we would expect the organization 
to be created. 

I think the most important thing that has 
come out of this work is the beginning of an 

October 21, 1974 

expression by the consuming countries to 
consider their destiny and their security as 
energy consumers together. This is expressed 
in many ways — in the contingency provi- 
sions, in the majority voting, in the very 
strong commitments undertaken to improve 
their security. 

Looking toward the future, though, this is 
an arrangement which is intended to be the 
base for working on the really important and 
positive aspects of the problem, of which the 
most immediate is conservation. 

I think it is obvious that the conservation 
effort undertaken by the members of this 
group of 12 countries, or by any industrial- 
ized countries, has been very limited and 
that the group remains vulnerable as a whole 
to new cutbacks due to the fact that it has 
not slowed down very significantly its en- 
ergy consumption. As a matter of fact, we 
saw recently in the case of the United States 
that gasoline consumption for the first time 
in a year was over its level of 12 months ear- 

This will be certainly one of the great tasks 
for this winter in all the industrialized coun- 
tries and, we would expect, in the organiza- 
tion created by this undertaking. 

That, in general, is where we are now. Let 
me see whether I can answer your questions. 

Q. Mr. Enders, reports from Brussels, 
which are four days old already, mention 7 
percent as the threshold. I don't think you 
mentioned this percentage. 

Assistant Secretary Enders: No. If you 
like the detail, it is as follows. 

The threshold for either a selective em- 
bargo or for a general embargo for the group 
as a whole is. 7 percent. When there is a 7 
percent shortfall, there would be a commit- 
ment to a 7 percent curtailment of oil con- 
sumption in all the countries, or in the case 
of a selective embargo which would not re- 
quire such a general curtailment of demand, 
an equivalent sharing mechanism and com- 

The next trigger level is at 12 percent. 
When the shortfall for the group as a whole 
is at 12 percent, there is a commitment to 





take demand restraint measures at the 10 
percent level. The idea is that one would also 
use some stocks in between to cover the 

There is a further general commitment 
that should the shortfalls exceed 12 percent 
the group would take the actions necessary 
to overcome the situation, including addi- 
tional demand restraint as required. 

Q. Mr. Enders, is it the premise that an 
active and successful conservation program 
woidd eventually have an impact on driving 
doivn the price? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: I would put 
it the other way around, that if the price of 
oil remains at its present level there will be — 
there is already — such massive investment 
in alternative sources of energy that the 
market for imported oil from outside this 
group will, 10 years from now, be very small 

A conservation effort would tend to result 
in a much more even progression of prices 
and demand. A major conservation effort 
here, I think, would convince the producers 
in much shorter order than they may other- 
wise be convinced that their present prices 
are unrealistic and unsustainable. 

Q. Is it possible to get specific at all about 
the dimensions of conservation approaches 
which were considered, or is this in a very 
generalized form? Is there any estimation 
of what is contemplated in terms, say, of cut- 
back in gasoline consumption for automobiles 
or oil consumption for heating? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Under this 

Q. Yes. 

Assistant Secretary Enders: The choice 
of conservation measures would have to be 
left to each country to do. On the other hand, 
the group as a whole would have to be satis- 
fied that the measures that were available 
on a standby basis would be adequate. 

Now, in the case of the United States 
there are two things to be said. One is that 
if the United States had to execute this agree- 
ment in the relatively near future it would 

have the authority in the Allocation Act and 
in other acts to do it: — probably by creating 
a situation like the one that prevailed last 
winter, using gas lines as an informal, and 
often very inequitable, form of rationing. 

Therefore we expect to be going to the 
Congress at a point, probably at the start of 
the next session but conceivably later this 
year, to propose a broad set of standby au- 
thorities in demand restraint which might in- 
clude a spectrum of things ranging from al- 
location authority, changes in such demand 
restraint measures as speed limits, thermo- 
stat regulation — a whole series of adminis- 
trative measures of this kind — through to 
emergency tax measures and rationing to 
give the administration the kind of broad 
standby authority to achieve these goals on 
what we would regard as a more equitable 
basis than could be done at present. 

Q. Is all this in the law now, this author- 
ity for allocation? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: The alloca- 
tion authority is there now. 

Q. Rationing? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: No. Or at 
least it's uncertain just how strong it is. 

Q. What is the likelihood of bringing 
France, and for that matter Japan as well, 
into this agreement? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: France has 
not participated in these talks. The French 
Government has not given us its studied, 
considered view on how it might relate to 
this work. We are still hopeful that some- 
time in the future France will join this ef- 
fort. And I think that the transfer of this 
whole effort from a separate country group- 
ing, the Energy Coordinating Group, toward 
the OECD may be helpful to France in com- 
ing in. 

Let me note in this regard that a number 
of other countries have expressed an interest 
in this work — Australia, New Zealand, Spain, 
Switzerland, Sweden, Austria — so that we 
would expect that there will be at least sev- 
eral new members. It's not certain whether 
France will be among them yet. 


Department of State Bulletin 

■ jSSm 

As to Japan, again I don't want to pre- 
judge the Japanese decisionmaking proc- 
esses, but certainly their attitude toward 
these negotiations, toward the conclusion, 
and toward the prospect has been very posi- 

Q. What about Norway? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Norway. I 
would not, again, speak specifically to Nor- 
way. They have accepted this draft on the 
same ad referendum basis as other coun- 
tries. Their position is formally no different 
from others. 

I think we know that all foreign policy 
issues, and particularly all oil issues, have a 
particular importance — perhaps a particular 
delicacy — in Norway at this time. They will 
be in the process of making their decision in 
the course of the next month. 

I don't think I should really comment on it 
more than that, other than to say that they 
are exactly at the same point in terms of ne- 
gotiating as the other countries. 

Q. Mr. Enders, coidd you explain the shar- 
ing mechanism a bit further? It's unclear to 
me whether it would be triggered only in the 
case of a selective embargo so that there 
would be sharing of oil in the international 
marketplace or whether the oil to be shared 
woidd include oil produced from national re- 
sources for national uses; in other words, 
U.S. oil which does not normally go into the 
international marketplace. 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Oil to be 
shared would come from three sources : one, 
oil normally imported from outside the group 
into the group; secondly, oil drawn from 
stocks on an agreed basis; and thirdly, all 
domestically produced oil. 

Q. And you have different percentage lev- 

Assistant Secretary Enders: For each? 

Q. For each. 

Assistant Secretary Enders: No, they are 
considered as a pool. 

Q. They are all as a pool? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Yes, sir. 

Q. But as a realistic matter, at the lower 
shortfall percentages you woidd not be going 
into the third reservoir, would you? I mean 
that woidd be more or less taken up from the 
oil that's in the international marketplace, 
wouldn't it? In other words, at what level 
would you actually be getting to a point 
where a nation that no longer exports oil on 
a net basis, such as the United States, woidd 
have to start sharing some of that oil? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Well, this 
would occur only in a very severe crisis, un- 
der the agreed arrangement. 

Q. Is there at present a set of percentage 
triggers that would move the group from 
one level? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Only the ones 
that I have cited. In other words, oil is 
treated as one pool for the purposes of this 
agreement. There is no differentiation be- 
tween domestically produced oil, imported 
oil, and oil drawn from stocks. And the trig- 
gers that are available are the ones that I 
have cited here — 7 percent, 12 percent, the 
ones which are available. 

Now, in point of fact, in the sort of crisis 
that we had last winter, then of course one 
would share available stocks and imported 

During a very severe crisis, if there were 
to be a total shutdown of OPEC [Organi- 
zation of Petroleum Exporting Countries] 
production, then you would get some sharing 
of American oil. 

Q. It depends on the length of the crisis. 

Assistant Secretary Enders: It depends on 
the depth, too. 

Q. If there is a selective embargo, boycott, 
as against, say, two countries, as there was 
in October, then the other countries involved, 
ones engaged in the sharing of their oil, 
would obviously become exposed to retalia- 
tory measures from the oil producers in the 
normal course of events? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Oh, I think 
that is true. I think the selective embargo is 



October 21, 1974 


by nature a very aggressive act. And I think 
one of the important aspects of this is that 
it would provide group solidarity against 
that. I think that's a fundamental principle. 

Q. Besides group solidarity, I'm under the 
impression that the agreement doesn't con- 
tain anything in the way of joint consulta- 
tion, negotiation, or contact with the pro- 
ducers. Why? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Yes, it does. 

Q. It does? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Yes, it does. 
A chapter of the agreement, one out of 10 
chapters in the agreement, is devoted to the 
process of consultation with the producers. 
And it contains there a strong commitment 
to explore ways of developing the dialogue 
with producers. 

I should add that there's another provision 
of it that I've overlooked, and that is that 
the international oil companies — and that in- 
cludes not only the majors but major na- 
tional oil companies — are to provide to this 
new organization a range of information on 
their activities including their pricing and fi- 
nancial structure, which are important mat- 
ters of national policymaking. 

Q. Well, could you clarify that point? Does 
it specifically provide for consultation by the 
consuming nations on oil pricing per se ? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: No, it does 
not provide for consultation on oil pricing 
per se. The language is more broadly drawn. 

Q. Mr. Enders, on a question of the stock- 
pile provisions — 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Yes. 

Q. — in terms of available supplies right 
now, how long would current stockpiles last? 
And, also, how long would it take — 

Assistant Secretary Enders: It depends on 
how deep the cut is. 

Q. — how long would it take to build up 
stockpiles so that they'd last for 90 days? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: It's very dif- 

ficult to answer those questions in the ab- 
stract, because it depends on what kind of a 
cut you have. But I think you can get some 
idea from the following. 

A few Europeans have 75 days of stocks ; 
most have closer to 60 days of true emer- 
gency stocks, or maybe even less. The Jap- 
anese have 60 days of stocks at the present 
time, but how much of those are pure emer- 
gency stocks in the sense that they could be 
withdrawn and used without the system 
breaking down in the sense that there were 
major stock shortages throughout the econ- 
omy is not entirely clear. 

I think the important thing to say here is 
that there will be a substantial new demand 
for oil in order to build those stocks up to 
90 days of true emergency stocks, and that 
will take probably several years. 

Q. How large is the U.S. stock? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: On this basis, 
we think that overall U.S. stocks are cur- 
rently about 110 days of imports. However, 
the true emergency element in that is sub- 
stantially smaller. I can't give you a specific 
figure ; but it is definitely less. 

Q. Because of domestic production? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Well, of 
course, the fact that we have domestic pro- 
duction means that we haven't carried emer- 
gency stocks in the same way other countries 

On the other hand, there is a complicated 
engineering matter we still haven't got a 
clear fix on, as to just where the collapse 
point is of the system. Once we can identify 
that, we can answer this kind of question 
for the group as a whole. 

Q. Is this in the case of the 90-day stocks ? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: In the case of 
individual countries, that is again a matter 
that has to be determined for each country. 

Q. In our case, would it be government 
stocks or would it be oil company stocks ? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: That is a mat- 
ter in which we have yet to make a proposal. 


Department of State Bulletin 

That would be included in our legislative 
package for this fall. 

Q. In practical terms, you mean it's un- 
clear whether the naval petroleum reserves 
would be counted. Is that what you're say- 
ing ? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: No. There's 
another detail of it that I've not mentioned. 
And that is that standby production can be 
counted against these stock totals under the 
terms of the agreement on a basis which has 
been agreed — a rather complicated formula — 
which takes account both of the lag in bring- 
ing in standby production in the course of a 
crisis and of the fact that of course standby 
production will last you much longer than 
stocks will. So that standby production for 
a country like the United States — Norway, 
prospectively — Great Britain, Canada — sure- 
ly can count against the stock total. 

Q. If it takes several years, as I under- 
stood you to say, to build up to the 90-day 
stocks in most countries, doesn't that also 
mean that it will be several years before the 
use fid impact of this plan is felt? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Before its 
full impact is felt — yes. 

The question of how rapidly you go up on 
stocks is a question of what the price impact 
would be. Obviously, a major new demand 
for oil in the world at the present time, at a 
time when the OPEC countries are making 
an effort to sustain a price that is threatened 
by an incipient surplus, would tend to have a 
price-strengthening effect — which is not de- 
sired, surely, by the consumers. Therefore 
we would expect that the stockpiling would 
occur over a certain length of time. 

Q. Is this agreement in itself subject to 
Senate confirmation? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: What we have 
told our contacts on the Hill is that given the 
fact that a broad program of legislation 
would, we think, be desirable and required to 
put it into effect, we have proposed that 
the agreement itself be an executive agree- 
ment — and of course it would be submitted 

to lay before the Congress in the normal 
manner — and then we'd come in with a pack- 
age of implementing legislation which would 
be acted on in a normal way. 

Q. Do your contacts on the Hill under- 
stand that the implementing legislation per- 
haps would involve rationing authority and 
tax changes? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Yes, they do. 

Q. And they're favorable to them? 

Assistayit Secretary Enders: Well, in prin- 
ciple. They obviously are going to look very 
closely at the package that comes up, and 
nobody in advance of an agreement of this 
kind is going to commit himself. 

This is why we have had extensive consul- 
tations so far, and will again have, before 
going back and committing ourselves by ini- 
tialing. Then we would envisage the further 
legislative process. 

Let me say that in this regard, though, I 
think a great many people on the Hill, in the 
public — as well as in the administration — 
feel that we ought to be doing something 
about this problem. And I think that the no- 
tion that we must diminish our vulnerability 
by means of this kind and by means of con- 
servation is a very widely held view. 

Q. I'm not sure of the chronology. Are 
you going to go before Congress for the im- 
plementing legislation before you sign the 
agreement or what? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: No. I think, 
legally, the way this would be set up would 
be to have an initialing — which is, basically, 
a commitment in principle, or the equivalent, 
a political commitment rather than a legal 
commitment — sometime in the course of the 
fall. And then countries would be asked to 
submit a certification that they had under- 
taken all necessary ratification and had all 
necessary authority to execute the agreement 
within a certain time period. 

Q. Is this proposal intended to be dis- 
cussed this coming weekend when France's 
Foreign [and Finance] Ministers are here? 











October 21, 1974 


Assistant Secretary Enders: That's an in- 
teresting — sort of a backdoor — question on 
that! [Laughter.] 

Q. Really. 

Assistant Secretary Enders: I'm sorry 
that I really can't get into the question about 
a meeting this weekend — 

Q. Why? 

Q. Well, there have already been 'public 
references that a meeting Saturday and Sun- 
day will take place. 

Assistant Secretary Enders: — other than 
to say that such a meeting is being worked 
out. But as to whether it will in fact occur 
and how it's going to occur, what might 
happen — [laughter]. 

Q. You referred to an agreement of 82 
articles. What is the volume size of this 
agreement here? Is it something in 30-UO 
pages ? I'm just trying to get an approxima- 
tion of what it is. 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Well, I can't 
really tell, to tell you the truth, because I 
think each of the articles has been written 
on a separate page at this time. 

Q. Mr. Enders, what about the weight of 
the votes? How many votes does the United 
States have, for instance? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Each coun- 
try would have three votes under this pro- 
posal, and then 100 votes would be allocated 
to the group for oil consumption. And of 
that total, I think the United States has 51. 
So it makes the U.S. vote 54. 

Q. Mr. Enders, is there anything in this 
program in a broad, general sense that you 
think woidd help drive doivn the price of oil? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: The purpose 
of this program is, in the first instance, de- 
fensive. The oil crisis — oil embargoes of last 
winter — caught the industrial countries very 
much unprepared. And the result was an 
extraordinary increase in prices and a lot 
of political friction and competition among 


The first objective of this agreement is to 
create a situation in which a new shortfall in 
oil could be handled by those countries with- 
out that extraordinary increase in prices, 
the competition, and the friction — to enable 
them to adjust to it in a rational manner, 
should it occur. 

Beyond that, of course, this is an expres- 
sion of the solidarity of the consuming coun- 
tries and a first step toward their doing 
something about their basic energy predica- 
ment — about the fact that they are more 
vulnerable than they would wish to be, and 
they should be, to foreign imports. 

But the next steps, as I think I said before, 
are in terms of changing the demand-supply 
balance, getting prices down. The next steps 
are the important ones. 

Q. I'd like to ask just a variation of a 
question I asked earlier in terms of a selec- 
tive boycott or embargo. Wouldn't the net 
effect of this be that if a selective boycott 
were attempted, the countries imposing the 
boycott woidd be faced with the probability 
that there woidd have to be a general boycott 
against all these countries, or not, because 
of the sharing arrangement? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: Well, I think 
that what you say suggests that you can't 
have solidarity without facing up to that 
danger. In effect, what the solidarity means 
is that producing countries cannot target 
individual countries without expecting that 
their embargo will be offset by this solidar- 
ity; and it raises that possibility. As such, 
I would expect it to be some deterrent to 
action of that kind. 

Q. I'm not clear yet, Mr. Enders. You said 
something about the enabling legislation 
woidd go to Congress either later this year 
or early next year. 

Assistant Secretary Enders: That's right. 
A decision hasn't been made. 

Q. Could we properly report then the Ford 
administration is going to ask Congress for 
rationing authority either later this year or 
early next year? 

Department of State Bulletin 

Assistant Secretary Enders: I use the 
word "rationing" as illustrative. We have 
not yet determined the kinds of authority we 
wish to have under the heading of demand 
restraint. There's a very broad range of 
possibilities. And one possibility for the Ford 
administration would be to ask for some 
standby authority in each of the categories 
I mentioned. Another, of course, would be 
to ask for some specific authority in a given 

Let me just repeat that certainly tax au- 
thority, standby authority to raise the prices 
of petroleum products — which would have a 
similar effect — administrative measures such 
as changing speed limits, limits on thermo- 
stat settings, as well as rationing, are all 
potential possibilities. And these would be 
on a standby basis. 

Q. I'm interested in the whole question of 
conservation and whether there is unanimity 
of view about the need to think seriously 
about it throughout the government. And 
my question is really based on the publicly 
expressed attitudes of the Secretary of the 
Treasury, who has been going around talk- 
ing about oil surpluses and prices going 
down and "Don't worry too much about this, 
fellows. It will all go away." Now, are you 
speaking today for the whole government or 
for part of it? 

Assistant Secretary Enders: With all due 
respect, you've set up a strawman whom I 
can't recognize as the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury. I could not answer to that. For his 
views, you can ask him his views now. But 
they don't in my view, as I understand 
him, correspond to what you said. 

As to the question of conservation, that 
clearly is one of the major items that must 
be included and which is under serious study 

in Project Independence. I'm not attempt- 
ing to prejudge what measures the adminis- 
tration will adopt to accomplish that goal; 
but I think its goal is very clear, has been 
very clear, from the start of Project Inde- 
pendence — that this must be a major part of 
reducing our dependence on imported oil. 

United States Extends Recognition 
to Republic of Guinea-Bissau 

Following is the text of a letter from Pres- 
ident Ford sent on September 10 to Luis de 
Almeida Cabral, President of the Council of 
State of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau. 

Dear Mr. President : I am pleased to in- 
form you that the United States Government 
extends recognition to the Republic of Guin- 
ea-Bissau. It is our hope, with your agree- 
ment, that diplomatic relations can be estab- 
lished between our countries. 

We congratulate your leaders and their 
Portuguese colleagues on the wise statesman- 
ship, patience and depth of vision they have 
demonstrated in their negotiations. 

In extending the congratulations of my 
country, I speak for a people who share with 
the people of Guinea-Bissau the knowledge 
that hard-won individual liberty and inde- 
pendence can be preserved only by unremit- 
ting labor and great sacrifice. 

In the coming days we wish to strengthen 
and multiply our bonds of friendship with 
the Government and people of Guinea-Bissau. 
I am confident of a future in which our two 
peoples shall work together in the cause of 
freedom, peace and the welfare of mankind. 

Gerald R. Ford. 




October 21, 1974 


President Leone of Italy Makes State Visit to the United States 

Giovanni Leone, President of the Italian 
Republic, made a state visit to the United 
States September 25-29. He met with Presi- 
dent Ford and other government officials in 
Washiyigton September 25-26. Following are 
an exchange of greetings between President 
Ford and President Leone at a welcoming 
ceremony on the South Lawn of the White 
House on September 25, their exchange of 
toasts at a dinner at the White House that 
evening, and an exchange of toasts between 
Secretary Kissinger and President Leone at 
a luncheon that day, together with the text 
of a joint statement issued September 26. 


Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents dated Sept. 30 

President Ford 

Mr. President, and ladies and gentlemen: 
Mr. President, I warmly welcome you to the 
United States of America. I warmly welcome 
you on behalf of all Americans who are 
deeply grateful for the gifts of genius and 
beauty your country has given to all man- 
kind. On behalf of the millions and millions 
of Americans who are proud to claim Italy as 
their ancestral homeland, I welcome you 
with a very special family affection. 

You, Mr. President, are an honored leader 
of one of America's truest allies. In the past 
three decades, America has been very, very 
proud to have been associated with Italy in 
your successful efforts to build a democratic 
industrial society. I assure you, Mr. Presi- 
dent, of America's continued commitment to 
a stable, free, and democratic Italy. 

I also wish to restate most emphatically 
our intention to work closely with your coun- 

try in strengthening Atlantic cooperation 
and Atlantic security. I think we must all 
admit that the road will not be easy. The 
problems of inflation and of assuring equita- 
ble access to fairly priced resources, for ex- 
ample, threaten the stability of every econ- 
omy and the welfare of people in developed 
as well as in developing countries alike. The 
very — very nature of these problems defies 
solution by unilateral measures. 

Mr. President, I look forward to our dis- 
cussions over the next two days. I am confi- 
dent that our talks will contribute to our mu- 
tual efforts to secure peace for all nations of 
the world. There is no doubt that they will 
serve to reinforce the ties that have bound 
our friendship over the many years. 

Mr. President, you are most welcome to 

President Leone 1 

Mr. President: I thank you for the invita- 
tion that you extended to me immediately af- 
ter taking over your high office as President 
of the United States of America, thus con- 
firming an invitation I had received last 
year. Thank you for the warm welcome you 
have given me and for the kind words of 
welcome that you have just spoken. 

It is a great honor for me to represent 
Italy on this official visit to this great coun- 
try, which is striking in its vitality and crea- 
tive capacity, which is in the vanguard of 
progress, which is strong in its democratic 
institutions which date back to the birth of 
a free nation. 

And it is precisely to celebrate with just 
pride the birth of a free nation that you are 

1 President Leone spoke in Italian on all occasions. 


Department of State Bulletin 

about to celebrate the bicentennial of the 
Declaration of Independence, which also car- 
ries the signature of an Italian, Guglielmo 

It is an historic and solemn document 
which prepared the Constitution of the 
United States of America, among whose in- 
spirers may I recall with pride the name of 
a great Neapolitan lawyer, Gaetano Filan- 

The relations between our two nations have 
deep and longstanding roots embodied by 
those millions of Italians who at all times in 
every capacity, with their work and their in- 
telligence and their thought, have made sub- 
stantial contribution to the well-being and 
progress of this country. 

Those relations are sustained by our com- 
mon dedication to the principles of democ- 
racy and freedom and to the cause for peace. 

Our common efforts, within the purview of 
our respective possibilities, are aimed at a 
constant quest for peace. The Atlantic alli- 
ance is conceived and experienced by the 
United States, by Italy, and by all its mem- 
bers as an instrument for security and peace. 

The commitment that Italy is pursuing 
with constancy, energy, and firmness is to 
achieve a unity that is not only economic but 
also political, so as to convey and channel 
the considerable resources of the old conti- 
nent, in the light of its great traditions, to 
the service of the well-being of nations and 
the consolidation of peace. The work of de- 
tente that Italy, like the United States and 
other countries, has been pursuing for years 
with constancy and firmness in close coopera- 
tion with its allies, knowing that we have 
the will of the peoples of the world behind us. 

And it is in the same spirit that we think 
we must study and tackle the great economic 
problems which beset the world and the even 
greater problems posed by modern civiliza- 
tion, problems which affect very closely our 
social and private lives. 

The vastness and urgency of the task and 
the importance of the resources that it re- 
quires are such as to call for a global answer 
resulting from the joint efforts of all. 

I feel certain, Mr. President, that our talks 

will consolidate the friendship between the 
people of America and of Italy and that they 
will develop our already excellent relations. 

And I should like to extend to you also, on 
behalf of the Italian Government represented 
here by our Foreign Minister Signor Moro, 
my warmest greetings and my good wishes 
to you for your Presidency, and I should like 
also to extend those greetings on behalf of 
my wife to Mrs. Ford and to your children. 

And in conclusion, Mr. President, it is with 
great pride that I bring the fraternal greet- 
ings of the people of Italy to the great and 
generous people of the United States of 


Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents dated Sept. 30 

President Ford 

Mr. President: It is wonderful to have you 
and Mrs. Leone and your three sons with us 
this evening. As I said this morning at the 
time you came and joined us, the United 
States has a great debt of gratitude and a 
great sense of friendship for Italy because 
of the many, many people in this United 
States who have an ancestral background 
from Italy. 

As I read and listen and look around our 
country, some 10 percent of our people have 
a background from Italy. We have superb 
artists, we have outstanding individuals in 
science, we have some very renowned ath- 
letes, we have many, many people in public 
life who have had a background from your 
country. And we are proud of them and their 
contributions to our country. 

But I think, Mr. President, the broadest re- 
lationship that we have is what Italy has 
contributed to the United States, without 
personal identification, in the field — in those 
areas that one could describe as grace, hu- 
manity, tolerance, and an awareness of beau- 

We have a great American writer by the 
name of Mark Twain who once wrote — and 
he wasn't very complimentary to foreign- 


October 21, 1974 


ers — but one of his nicer moments, he wrote, 
"The Creator made Italy from the designs of 
Michelangelo." And that was a nice com- 
ment. It was probably the best he ever made 
about any foreigners. 

But to be serious, Mr. President, in all of 
the time that I had the privilege of serving 
in the Congress, the United States and Italy 
were building together. We were building in 
the process of reconstruction following the 
war. We were building in the process of Eu- 
rope as a whole in the reconstruction period. 

This 25-year span led, of course, to our al- 
liance, where we have developed a friendship 
and an agreement for diplomatic, military, 
economic, and cultural expansion and reci- 

We dealt with Italy on a personal basis, 
and we have worked together in our rela- 
tionships with our allies in Western Europe. 
And the net result has been a better relation- 
ship between us as people and our govern- 
ments on behalf of our people. 

But, Mr. President, it was a pleasure for 
me to meet you this morning and to be re- 
assured of your willingness to talk in a frank 
and candid way about our mutual problems. 
And from one who spent a good share of his 
life in the political arena in the United 
States, I was greatly impressed with your 
wise statesmanship and your great knowledge 
of the problems in Europe and the rest of the 

And so it was a privilege and a pleasure 
for me to meet you and to discuss these mat- 
ters with you and to help in the process of 
building a better relationship between Italy 
and the United States. 

And if I might, may I ask all of you to 
stand and join with me in a toast to the 
President of the Republic of Italy. 

President Leone 

For the second time today, Mr. President, 
1 take my set speech and I set it aside. I am 
putting it back into my pocket because I want 
to speak from my heart. The set speech, the 
written paper, will remain. It will perhaps go 


into the archives of state, but my speech will 
spring from my heart. 

You, Mr. President, have said some very 
nice things about me and about my country. 
Now, the things you said about me, I am 
sure, were totally undeserved, and they mere- 
ly stemmed from your very great kindness. 
But what you said about my country makes 
me very proud indeed. 

You recalled the contribution that Italy 
has made to arts and to civilization. We pre- 
sent this heritage to you, which is the heri- 
tage of centuries. We present it to you as our 
friendly ally, not with pride — which might 
perhaps be justified — but as a sort of visit- 
ing card for you to understand us better. 

Italy has inherited the greatest legal tra- 
dition of all times and Italy is the mistress 
of the arts. It can therefore only pursue 
ideals of democracy and freedom for all. And 
what other nation can better support us in 
these ideals than the United States. 

Your Constitution, Mr. President, the first 
written constitution that ever existed, has 
laid the foundations of the free world. And 
we are making this visit to this great coun- 
try with the Foreign Minister, Mr. Moro, 
who is an authoritative representative of my 
government, to reassert four things. 

The first is the faithful, loyal, and constant 
friendship between our two nations, which is 
based, as you said, in part also on our com- 
mon ancestry. 

The second point is the Atlantic alliance. 
That is the second point we want to reassert. 
As I said this morning, it is seen by Italy, by 
the United States, and by all the member 
countries, as an instrument for detente and 

And we want to reassert, thirdly, our firm 
belief in the need to build a united Europe 
which will be complementary to the Atlantic 
alliance and which will not be against Amer- 
ica, but with the United States of America. 

And, fourthly, we want to tell you how 
very much we support your policy of de- 
tente, in which you have the great coopera- 
tion of your Secretary of State, which policy 
of detente expresses the will of the peoples 

Department of State Bulletin 

of the world that thirst for peace and justice. 

Now, if these four points are confirmed — 
and they have already been confirmed indeed 
by our talks this morning with you, Mr. 
President, and this afternoon with your Sec- 
retary of State, and I am sure they will be 
reconfirmed again in the meeting you were 
kind enough to arrange with me tomorrow — 
if they are reconfirmed, Mr. President, then 
I can only say that I thank God for allowing 
me to represent Italy in this great country. 

And, Mr. President, you were good enough 
to extend your greetings to my whole family, 
and this is somewhat unusual, because in 
Italy we tend to hide our families away. And 
I have broken away from this tradition; I 
have brought my wife and children with me 
to present to you a typical Italian family, 
one that is a sound family, that is respectful 
of moral values, and that is united. 

Mr. President, may I take this opportunity 
to say how satisfied I am with the talks that 
we have had and how very glad I am that you 
have accepted my invitation to come and 
visit us in Italy. This has already made a 
favorable impression outside. 

And I hope that the burden that is now 
weighing on your shoulders — but you have 
very square shoulders, indeed; I know that 
you are an athlete ; I am not referring only 
to your physical strength — I hope that bur- 
den will yet give you some time to come to 
Italy where I can assure you of a very warm 
and affectionate welcome from the people of 
my country. And I hope that Mrs. Ford will 
be able to come with you. 

And so I say to you, God bless you. And I 
invoke the blessings of God upon you as I do 
upon my own family. 

And so I want to say now, thank you to the 
United States of America, and thank you 
very much for the music that you provided 
tonight. It was a touch of sentiment that I 
very much appreciated. I appreciated the Ne- 
apolitan song that was played. 

I told you, Mr. President, in our private 
talk that Naples is my hometown. It is very 
beautiful, generous, and poor. And many 
parts of Italy are poor, and that causes us 

some concern. I am mentioning this not with 
cup in hand at all but merely as a matter of 

And so now, Mr. President, ladies and gen- 
tlemen, I give you the toast : The health and 
prosperity of President Ford and his family, 
and the success and well-being of the people 
of America, and the consolidated friendship 
of the peoples of Italy and the United States 
of America. 


Press release 378 dated September 26 

Secretary Kissinger 

Mrs. Leone, ladies and gentlemen ; I speak 
here with some nervousness, not only because 
of the natural timidity which you all so fre- 
quently have seen in me, but also because I 
know I'm going to be followed by one of the 
great orators that I am familiar with. So if 
I prolong my remarks, it is to postpone the 
moment of truth. [Laughter.] 

Mr. President, you are here at a time when 
many American institutions are under at- 
tack. But there is one American institution 
that seems to survive all trials, and that is 
your Ambassador to the United States. 
[Laughter.] I have had occasion at the lunch 
you so kindly arranged for me at the Quiri- 
nale to see whether my requirement to report 
to him could be reduced from twice to once 
a week, and I want to say that of course I'm 
delighted to report to him regularly, but I 
wonder whether it is really required that he 
gives a grade to my secretary as he leaves 
the office. [Laughter.] 

Mr. President and Mrs. Leone, it is al- 
ways a great joy to meet with you. You rep- 
resent a country that has grown wise with 
many battles fought on its soil and skeptical 
with many ideas that proved to be not all 
that were presented — but also grown pro- 
found by the knowledge that ultimately 
everything depends on the quality of human 
relations. So we deal with you not only as po- 
litical but as personal friends. 









October 21, 1974 


;yf>#v- ' 

We have often spoken about the interde- 
pendence of the modern world. There is no 
country in Europe and few countries in the 
world which have experienced at such close 
hand the difficulties and the opportunities of 
the contemporary period. Italy is a country 
which has prospered enormously since the 
war, despite the absence of natural resources, 
because of the diligence of its population and 
the inventiveness of its leadership. In recent 
months, as a result of circumstances outside 
the control of Italy, many of these conditions 
have changed, and Italy faces economic diffi- 
culty. When Italy's friends, therefore, at- 
tempt to work out cooperative arrangements, 
it is not something that they do for Italy; it 
is something they do for themselves and for 
the structure of the modern world. It is no 
longer possible to conduct affairs on a na- 
tional basis. It is a duty for all nations to 
attempt to face the fact that we are living 
in a period of enormous transformations of 
the nature of the economy, of the nature of 
political relations, and we in the West can- 
not possibly cope with our problems unless 
we develop a new feeling of creativity and a 
new spirit of cooperation. 

That spirit always has existed in the rela- 
tionship between Italy and the United States, 
and in all the great issues that confront us 
we have seen matters very much alike. We 
have supported Italy's participation in a 
united Europe because we in turn knew that 
Italy's attitude toward the United States 
would make such a Europe — if it depended 
on Italy — a partner and a friend of the 
United States. Our guest today has played a 
very noble role in these efforts. 

Beyond all the political and economic mat- 
ters that concern us, there is a very impor- 
tant gift that Italy has bestowed on all of its 
friends. We hear so much about the danger 
of conformity in the modern world and the 
loss of individualism. But who can speak of 
a lack of individualism in Italy? And what- 
ever problems Italy has, conformity happily 
isn't one of them. 

And so we welcome you, Mr. President and 

Mrs. Leone, as old associates, as friends in 
the field of politics, and as personal friends. 
I'd like to propose a toast to President and 
Mrs. Leone, to the friendship of Italy and 
the United States. 

President Leone 

Dr. Kissinger has set a trap for me. He 
sent me a beautiful speech in which he even 
quoted Cicero, in the hope that I would fol- 
low the written outline that he'd prepared. 
And that is what we call in English a dirty 
trick; in Neapolitan we say "priest's trick." 
[Laughter.] So I'm going to counter that by 
setting aside my written speech, and fully 
respecting the political outline, the political 
policy, and guidelines of the Italian Govern- 
ment, which is authoritatively represented 
here by its Foreign Minister, Signor Moro, 
I shall now ad lib. 

First of all, Mr. Secretary, I should like to 
thank you very much for the cordial invita- 
tion that you extended to me to come to this 
luncheon, which is attended by exponents of 
the U.S. political, economic, and journalistic 
worlds and also by my delegation and by some 
outstanding Italian representatives of the 
press. I should like to take this opportunity to 
thank you very much for your words of 
praise for our Ambassador, Signor Ortona. 
You had already told me how much you ap- 
preciated him in Rome, and I'm only sorry 
that I cannot vote on the retirement law now. 
I would like to do it at once so as to have Mr. 
Ortona at home. 

Also, on behalf of the Foreign Minister of 
Italy, I would like to say how much we appre- 
ciate the work that has been done by your 
Ambassador, Mr. Volpe, who succeeds in 
combining a complete and untiring dedication 
to the interests of the United States with his 
affection for the country that his family came 
from originally. So I want to salute him here 
as a servant of the United States in his 
capital city and to thank him for what he 
does to further Italian-American relations. 

Mr. Secretary, I agree with all that you 


Department of State Bulletin 

have just said. First of all, I share your 
global view of the economic drama that is 
being enacted on the world stage now and 
that we might consider to be a Biblical 
scourge that has hit humanity. There is, as 
you said, even more than ever before a great 
need for international cooperation and soli- 
darity shown to the weaker nations by those 
nations that are privileged either because of 
their geographical position or because of 
their natural resources. Italy's most vital 
interests are at stake. 

But it is not only of that that I want to 
speak now but also of the human solidarity 
that you are displaying. We have a poet in 
Italy who said that the life of man is mystery 
and only he who aids his brothers makes no 
mistake. This human solidarity, this realiza- 
tion, this understanding of the need for 
global cooperation, was expressed not only 
by you, Mr. Secretary, but by the President 
of the United States. I am happy to turn my 
thoughts to him now. 

In any global vision of human affairs there 
are certain details, some more particular 
aspects that must be considered and which 
we are here to emphasize before you. They 
need your understanding, and it is in that 
spirit that we have come here. We have come 
here to reassert a century-old friendship with 
your country. We have only looked at each 
other in enmity across the ocean once in the 
course of history in the cause of the war that 
the Italian nation neither wanted nor de- 
cided. Our friendship was then reconfirmed 
in the Atlantic alliance, which was then re- 
asserted in the Ottawa Declaration. As I 
said this morning, we consider that alliance 
to be an instrument of security, detente, and 

But there is a second aspect involved in 
the Atlantic alliance, and that is solidarity 
from the economic point of view. As I said 
this morning to President Ford, we in Italy 
are well aware of the need for European 
unity to foster the well-being of the peoples 
of Europe, many of which provided you with 
many of your ancestors. You here who have 

originated from Europe, many of you, repre- 
sent a seed of culture and civilization which 
must be safeguarded. The Ottawa Declara- 
tion showed that European unity can be 
complementary to the Atlantic alliance. 

We have also come here, Mr. Secretary, to 
show you the true face of Italy. We thank 
you for saying so openly, so unreservedly, 
that you recognize that our problems were 
not generated entirely by ourselves. After 
all, Italy is a country which only 25 years 
ago lived on an outmoded and obsolete form 
of agriculture. A hundred years ago our best 
people used to come to the United States, 
seeking for jobs. Then there was the economic 
miracle, but we hardly dare speak of that 
nowadays; that's all over because Italy has 
been affected by the economic hurricane that 
has swept through the world. Now, we recog- 
nize, of course, that we have made mistakes, 
that there are shortcomings on our part, 
and we must be the first to put our house in 
order. We have taken at home what many 
considered to be extremely stringent meas- 
ures to try and do that. 

But Italy is here to say to you that it does 
not want to hide its difficulties ; and through 
its President, it wants to say to you that it 
feels its difficulties can be overcome if Italy 
can be certain of the staunch support of the 
great nations of this world. 

You said, Mr. Secretary, that the United 
States of America, this great and generous 
country, is prepared to look with sympathy 
on our problems. And so I say to you, we 
shall overcome. I should like to express to 
you here, Mr. Secretary, my personal friend- 
ship and also for Mrs. Kissinger. Unfor- 
tunately, I shall be away when you come to 
Rome, but one of these days I hope to wel- 
come you there again. 

I should like now to thank all of the 
American guests who are here for having at- 
tended this luncheon. I give you the toast 
to the President of the United States, the 
well-being of your country, and the friend- 
ship between the United States of America 
and Italy. 




October 21, 1974 



President Giovanni Leone of Italy made a State 
visit to the United States of America September 
25-29, 1974, at the invitation of President Gerald 
R. Ford of the United States of America. Accom- 
panying the President were Mrs. Leone, Minister of 
Foreign Affairs Aldo Moro, and other Italian 

During the visit, President Leone and President 
Ford held extensive and cordial discussions on a 
wide variety of international questions in which 
Minister of Foreign Affairs Aldo Moro and Secre- 
tary of State and Assistant to the President for 
National Security Affairs Henry A. Kissinger par- 
ticipated. Minister Moro and Secretary Kissinger 
also held detailed talks on current issues of mutual 

President Ford and President Leone expressed 
their mutual satisfaction with the results of the talks. 
It was agreed that frequent consultations in the spirit 
of the Atlantic Declaration signed in Brussels on 
June 26 were a most desirable means of achieving 
better understanding of problems of common interest 
and possible solutions. 2 They were in full agree- 
ment that such consultations should in no way 
prejudice other existing obligations. As a result of 
their exchanges of views, the two Presidents noted 
the broad agreement between them with respect to 
their policies in numerous areas: 

1. They noted that their policies will continue to 
be guided by their desire for the maintenance of 
peace, adherence to the principles of the United 
Nations Charter, and promotion of a stable structure 
of peace which reflects the diverse nature and needs 
of the nations of the world. In this connection, both 
sides emphasized their commitment to overcoming 
the sources of tension and conflict which are divisive 
factors in the international community. 

2. There was full agreement on the importance 
of the North Atlantic Alliance as an instrument 
which has guaranteed the security of its members, 
strengthened international stability, enhanced confi- 
dence among peoples, and thus has permitted them 
growing and fertile contacts with all the peoples of 
the world and provided the indispensable basis for 
the process of detente. 

3. They reemphasized in this connection the im- 
portance they attach to the Atlantic Declaration and 
their determination to seek the fulfillment of the 
principles set forth in the Declaration in concert 
with their other NATO allies. President Ford under- 
lined the importance the United States attaches to 

2 For text of the Declaration on Atlantic Relations 
adopted by the North Atlantic Council in ministerial 
session at Ottawa on June 19 and signed by NATO 
heads of government at Brussels on June 26, see 
Bulletin of July 8, 1974, p. 42. 

Italy's continuing valuable contributions to the 

4. They recognized the importance attached by 
the Nine members of the European Community to 
their efforts toward European union, and welcomed 
the reciprocal undertaking by the members of the 
Community and the United States to strengthen 
their relations on the basis of enhanced consultations 
within the broad framework of Atlantic coopera- 
tion. President Ford welcomed particularly the con- 
structive role played by Italy in strengthening this 

5. They noted their determination that current 
negotiations in furtherance of detente on matters 
related to security and cooperation in Europe must 
result in enhanced stability in the relationships 
among all nations concerned. They also emphasized 
their continuing commitment to achieving balanced 
and effective international arms control agreements 
resulting in undiminished security for all nations. 

6. They noted their concern with developments 
in the Mediterranean Basin and pledged their efforts 
to achieve equitable solutions. The United States 
noted in this connection that it looks to Italy, as a 
Mediterranean nation which has made a signal con- 
tribution to world civilization, to play a leading 
role in the common pursuit of lasting peace in 
that area. 

7. They expressed their conviction that only inter- 
national cooperative efforts can overcome the trade 
and financial problems confronting the nations of the 
world. They recognized that the solutions to national 
problems have their impact on the international 
community as a whole. While individual nations have 
primary responsibility for their own problems, the 
two Presidents recognize that the solutions re- 
quired in a modern and complex interdependent 
world may go far beyond individual capabilities and 
require cooperation among members of the interna- 
tional community. In this regard, the United States 
has taken careful note of Italy's major efforts to 
meet its own domestic economic and financial prob- 
lems and the responsiveness of the international 
community to these efforts. President Ford stated 
that the United States is prepared to play an appro- 
priate, constructive and responsible role in a return 
to economic equilibrium in Italy. 

8. They recognized the great importance of in- 
dustrial, technical, and cultural cooperation among 
all nations and the imperative need for the equitable 
distribution of world resources among all nations. 
They agreed to facilitate initiatives in this regard 
in appropriate forums. 

9. Finally, the two Presidents particularly noted 
the extraordinarily broad human ties between Italy 
and the United States of America, and the shared 
values and goals which bind together the Italian 
and American peoples. 

10. President Leone extended to President Ford 
an invitation to visit Italy in the near future. 
President Ford accepted with pleasure. 


Department of State Bulletin 

Dinner at the National Gallery 
Honors French Foreign Minister 

Following is an exchange of toasts between 
Secretary Kissinger and Jean Sauvagnar- 
gues, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 
French Republic, at a dinner at the National 
Gallery of Art at Washington on September 

Press release 383 dated September 30 


Mr. Foreign Minister, Madame Sauva- 
gnargues, ladies and gentlemen: My staff 
had prepared some remarks for me of really 
devastating profundity but impossible to 
read by candlelight. So I will have to im- 
provise a few remarks. [Laughter.] 

As I was sitting at the table I thought of 
a reception I attended this afternoon. I 
was invited to a retirement party, and hav- 
ing read the New York Times for the last 
few weeks, I thought perhaps something had 
happened that I hadn't been officially in- 
formed of yet. So on the one hand I was 
reassured when I came to the reception to 
find out it was a retirement for Senator 
Fulbright. But on the other [hand] I was 
extremely sad. And I reflected about the 
special role that Senator Fulbright has 
played in our national life. 

It occurred to me that the relationship 
that France has had with the United States 
has some similarity to the relationship that 
Senator Fulbright has had with the State 
Department. [Laughter.] There have been 
occasional criticisms, all the more irritating 
because they usually turned out to be right. 
But there also has been at the basis of 
the relationship an understanding that real 
friends are meaningful only if they have 
opinions of their own. 

The great problem of our contemporary 
world is to know how much unity we need 
and how much diversity we can stand. In 
a period of great revolutionary change, there 
is the great danger on the one hand that 

countries may lose their identity but on the 
other hand the problem, the danger, that one 
may not be able to find the basis for co- 
operative effort. 

In the last year the United States and 
France have had some different perspectives. 
But on our side — and I know on the side of 
France as well — we have always understood 
that we belong to the same family and that 
we have common interests. We respect 
France's efforts to build Europe as a con- 
tribution to the cooperation on a larger scale 
that is an inevitable requirement of the 
present world. And we understand, too, that 
the insistence on achieving one's own identity 
can in the long run provide the basis for the 
best form of cooperation. 

Foreign Minister Sauvagnargues and I 
have known each other only for a fe*w 
months. In that period, I believe I can say 
that many of the misunderstandings have 
been worked out and also that we are meet- 
ing tomorrow to look at one of the deepest 
problems that faces the world today, the 
problem of achieving a cooperative approach 
to the big alteration in economic relation- 
ships that threatens to engulf us all. On our 
side, we are confident that France, in the 
position of leadership of Europe to which its 
history entitles it and in cooperation with 
the United States, will continue to play the 
role of a good friend, occasional critic, but 
always a steady partner. 

We are delighted that we can welcome 
Foreign Minister Sauvagnargues, and Ma- 
dame Sauvagnargues on her first visit to 
Washington. I would like to propose a toast 
to the Foreign Minister and to the friendship 
between the United States and France. 


Mr. Secretary, Mrs. Kissinger, ladies and 
gentlemen: I am, of course, rather over- 
whelmed by this grand reception by this 
gathering of what's best in Washington 
[in] politics, science, arts, press, and even 
outer space. I can hardly find words, so I 
choose English because I've found in my 





i 5Q 










October 21, 1974 



!>'•' ' 



experience that when you are at a loss to 
say anything you must choose English. That 
doesn't mean that I won't say anything now ; 
I'll try, although I just read [in] the Herald 
Tribune a nice anecdote about the head of 
government who suddenly found he had 
nothing to say to the United Nations and so 
said he would renounce his address, and of 
course the Foreign Minister had to speak for 
him. [Laughter.] 

This doesn't mean that foreign ministers 
don't have anything to say, because the 
Secretary of State just told us fundamental 
things about the relations between the 
United States and France. And he told them 
with the simple words, without high-flown 
rhetoric, without any rhetoric as is apt to 
that kind of subject. That is also the lesson 
which is taught us by another messenger 
from France, the picture of the Magdalen 
de la Tour — a picture, I think, which we shall 
see a few minutes from now. 1 

Of course the relations between France 
and the United States is something that, 
when you talk about them you tend to invoke 
Lafayette, two-centuries-old traditions, et 
cetera. This is true, but it's also sort of en- 
grained habit, and it's sort of family senti- 
ment — a sort of belonging together, a sort of 
deeply engrained trust and confidence in each 
other which permits big fights and big quar- 
rels as in families where quarrels are at 
their bitterest and yet the feeling of to- 
getherness is not touched. 

In our relations we had and we may still 
have — although if it's up to Secretary of 
State Kissinger and myself it won't happen — 
artificial quarrels. Thank God, they have 
been disposed of, and now we are faced with 
the real problems, and these real problems 
are bad enough. They are bad enough. 

We are facing, as you said, Mr. Secretary, 

1 "The Repentant Magdalen," by Georges de la 
Tour was acquired by the National Gallery on 
Sept. 26. 

revolutionary times ; the balance of the world 
has been deeply disturbed and disturbed for 
a long time to come. We will have to adjust 
to a new set of things, to this reshuffle of 
cards, where the industrialized nations will 
have to live up to the fact that they got 
poorer and they'll have to tighten their belts 
somehow. So that speaks for, certainly, for 
solidarity, even if it doesn't speak for con- 
frontation, and on that I know you are in 
full agreement, Mr. Secretary, contrary to 
what the New York Times had to report 
yesterday or the day before yesterday. 

But let's not attack the press, because the 
press is a very important power in this 
country and also in mine. Let's only wish 
that the press could now make news of the 
very important news, which is that the Sec- 
retary of State of the United States and the 
Foreign Minister of France are not fighting 
with each other. [Laughter.] 

Well, I won't go on much longer on that. 
I'm convinced that the working relation- 
ship we have established, Mr. Secretary, will 
enable our governments to work together 
more closely as they should and deal with 
the very complex problems that are facing 
us. And I trust that this mutual effort will 
lead to a good result. 

I again want to express the thanks and 
the gratitude of my wife for this grand recep- 
tion. It's really the first time since I became 
Foreign Minister of France that I do feel 
not only the burden of this office but also 
its honor and its advantages, its joys. I 
understand this is one of the first occasions 
where dinner is given in this National Gal- 
lery I knew very well 20 years ago in Wash- 
ington — I haven't been here to 20 years, you 
see; it's like Alexander Dumas remarked: 
vingt ans apres. But this is really, truly a 
grand occasion. I want to thank the Secretary 
of State and Mrs. Kissinger for that. We 
will cherish that memory. 

I want to raise my glass to the Secretary of 
State and his wife. 


Department of State Bulletin 

The Dilemma of Controlling the Spread of Nuclear Weapons 
While Promoting Peaceful Technology 

Address by Fred C. Ikle 

Director, U.S. Arms Control arid Disarmament Agency 1 

The U.S. Congress and successive admin- 
istrations have had to grapple with the con- 
trol of nuclear technology for almost three 
decades. The essence of the difficulty lies 
in the dual nature of this technology. From 
the very beginning there have been high ex- 
pectations concerning peaceful uses of the 
atom. If nuclear power served only destruc- 
tive purposes, we would not have had the 
ambivalence that has bedeviled all our at- 
tempts to control the spread of nuclear 

It is as if mankind had been burdened 
with a Biblical curse. The fruit of the tree 
of knowledge — the great accomplishment of 
our nuclear scientists — holds both promise 
and threat; it can help keep alive our civili- 
zation and it can destroy it. 

It is hardly surprising that, historically, 
our ways of dealing with the nuclear pres- 
ence on earth have pulled in two inconsistent 
directions. We have tried by one means and 
then another to reconcile the dichotomy of 
nuclear power. 

In November 1945, some three months 
after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, President 
Harry Truman set a policy for the United 
States when he joined the Prime Ministers 
of Great Britain and Canada in signing a 
declaration among the three powers whose 
nuclear scientists and resources had been 
united during the war to build the first 
atomic bombs. The declaration argued 

1 Made before the Duke University Law Forum at 
Durham, N.C., on Sept. 18 (text from ACDA press 
release) . 

against the disclosure of information even 
about "the practical industrial application 
of atomic energy" before an international 
system of control was set up. 

The following year Bernard Baruch, Pres- 
ident Truman's representative, made the 
American proposal to the United Nations 
for which he is still remembered. It called 
for placing the nuclear resources of the 
world under the ownership and control of an 
independent international authority. That is 
to say, the Baruch plan provided for strict 
international control of all nuclear technol- 
ogy that might be diverted to destructive 
purposes. You doubtless know the rest of 
the story: The Soviet Union did not find 
this proposal acceptable, and it was subse- 
quently learned that the Soviets had in fact 
been working on the development of an atom- 
ic bomb since the middle of World War II. 

The first legislation passed by Congress 
to control the atom was in the spirit of the 
1945 three-power declaration in that it 
placed major emphasis on maintaining nu- 
clear secrecy. Ironically, it went so far in 
this direction as to terminate nuclear collab- 
oration with the other two signers of the 
declaration, Canada and Great Britain. 

The promotion of peaceful uses was thus 
relegated to a distinctly secondary position, 
while full attention was given to preventing 
the spread of nuclear-weapons technology. In 
1951 the Atomic Energy Act was amended 
but not with a view to promoting peaceful 
uses. It was amended so that military 
nuclear information could be shared to 



October 21, 1974 


strengthen the North Atlantic alliance. In 
practical terms this meant nuclear assistance 
to Great Britain. 

The "Atoms for Peace" Program 

Meanwhile, however, the potentialities for 
peaceful uses of atomic energy became in- 
creasingly evident, particularly the use of 
reactors for generating electric power. And 
as these new possibilities opened up, a new 
American policy began to take shape. In 
part it was a policy of exploiting the in- 
evitable — or so it must have been viewed by 
its proponents — but it was clothed in very 
appealing language: The program was called 
"Atoms for Peace." 

More importantly, the promotion of peace- 
ful commercial uses had now come to be 
regarded as a means of actually exorcising 
the evil side of nuclear energy, of reversing 
the trend toward acquisition of nuclear 
weapons. In addition, we had a commercial 
interest in reactor exports. Possibly, too, we 
were eager to demonstrate to the world that 
the United States had let loose a benevolent 
genie, not an evil one. 

In the hearings on this new program, 
held by the Joint Committee on Atomic 
Energy in 1954, Secretary Dulles said that 
knowledge in this field was developing in so 
much of the world that we could not hope to 
set up an effective "dam against the flow of 
information, and if we try to do it we will 
only dam our own influence and others will 
move into the field with the bargaining 
that that involves." In general, these crucial 
hearings showed a tolerant attitude toward 
the proliferation of nuclear technology, or 
so it would seem to us today. The resultant 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 called for mak- 
ing available to cooperating nations the bene- 
fits of peaceful applications of atomic energy 
"as widely as expanding technology and con- 
siderations of the common defense and se- 
curity would permit." The act authorized 
the Atomic Energy Commission to negotiate 
cooperation agreements without Senate 

Based on this act, the U.S. Government 
facilitated the participation of American in- 

dustry in atomic power activities abroad. 
Eventually, 26 American research reactors 
were installed in other countries. We orga- 
nized large conferences to transmit technical 
know-how. We licensed foreign firms to pro- 
duce and sell our reactors. And we shipped 
materials abroad to help other countries 
move ahead in nuclear technology. For ex- 
ample, in 1955, with the encouragement of 
Congress, we sold 10 tons of heavy water to 
India for her research reactor. All told, we 
spent hundreds of millions of dollars on 
spreading nuclear technology abroad (exclu- 
sive of weapons assistance to our allies but 
including the interest subsidy on Export- 
Import Bank loans). 

The Eisenhower administration also took 
practical steps to build an international in- 
stitution that could facilitate cooperation in 
peaceful nuclear technology with safeguards 
against diversion for military purposes. In 
his "Atoms for Peace" address at the United 
Nations, President Eisenhower had proposed 
the creation of an international atomic ener- 
gy organization; and notwithstanding early 
Soviet objections to this idea, it finally was 
carried out. In 1957, the International 
Atomic Energy Agency, with headquarters 
in Vienna, was established, and the U.S. 
Senate adopted a resolution approving its 
statute. Today, this Agency is a viable or- 
ganization making a substantial contribu- 
tion toward the separation of peaceful from 
military uses of nuclear technology. 

From hindsight, we might regard this 
Agency and the network of international 
agreements supporting it as the quid pro 
quo that the United States obtained in ex- 
change for its very generous — perhaps over- 
ly generous — assistance in nuclear technol- 
ogy to a great many countries throughout 
the world. 

The Problem of Peaceful Nuclear Explosives 

In the 1960's Congress maintained its in- 
terest in the peaceful application of nuclear 
technology. But now it showed renewed con- 
cern with the risk of spreading weapons 
technology. It took initiatives of its own 
to pave the way for the Nonproliferation 


Department of State Bulletin 

Treaty of 1968. Particularly important was 
the Pastore resolution in 1966, urging the 
government to negotiate a nonproliferation 

As for the Nonproliferation Treaty itself, 
although there have been, and continue to be, 
some important holdout countries, the fact 
remains that it has been a successful arms 
control measure. Eighty-three countries have 
ratified it, another 23 have signed it, and 
there are prospects for additional adherences 
in the not too distant future. 

This treaty obligates all parties not to 
facilitate the acquisition of nuclear explo- 
sives — whether called bombs or peaceful de- 
vices — by countries not possessing nuclear 
weapons. This obligation implies that the 
transfer of materials and know-how ought 
to be controlled or curtailed. At the 
same time, the treaty obligates the nuclear- 
weapons states that are party to it to pro- 
vide assistance to all other parties on peace- 
ful nuclear technology, including explosives 
for peaceful purposes. Thus this legal in- 
strument incorporates the very dilemma that 
has troubled international control of nuclear 
technology from the first day. 

The idea of using nuclear explosives for 
peaceful purposes has been around for some 
time. As early as 1949, after the first Soviet 
nuclear test, Andrei Vyshinsky told the 
United Nations that the Soviet purpose in 
developing nuclear explosives was to "blow 
up mountains and change the course of 
rivers." Little was heard of this idea until 
the mid-1950's, when American scientists 
promoted the Plowshare program — the use 
of nuclear devices for excavation. There- 
after the United States stressed the possible 
benefits of this technology, while the Soviet 
Union had turned skeptical. The program 
found considerable support in Congress in 
the 1960's. But the American interest in 
peaceful nuclear explosives has since de- 
clined, and this year Congress explicitly pro- 
hibited the use of energy R&D funds for 
field testing such explosives. Now, in the 
meantime, some nuclear experts in the Soviet 
Union have become eager about exploring 
this technology. Hence it was at Soviet in- 

sistence that the recent Threshold Test Ban 
Treaty left open the question of peaceful 
explosives for subsequent negotiations. 

How can one distinguish "peaceful" from 
"military" explosives? The U.S. Government 
has gone on record many times to insist that 
the technology of making nuclear explosives 
for peaceful purposes is indistinguishable 
from the technology of making nuclear 

The Indian explosion dramatized this di- 
lemma. In the wake of the Indian explosion 
and the subsequent U.S. offer to sell nuclear 
reactors to Egypt and Israel, there has been 
very intense congressional interest in the 
problem of nonproliferation, as is evidenced 
by the number of bills and resolutions which 
have been generated. Of two bills providing 
for more stringent requirements in nuclear 
cooperation agreements and increased con- 
trol by Congress, one has already been 
signed into law this year, and the other has 
been through conference; and a series of 
other bills, in somewhat similar vein, has 
been under consideration. 

Avoidance of Further Proliferation 

Turning now to the future prospects, I 
would stress to this audience that the avoid- 
ance of further nuclear proliferation is in- 
creasingly a matter of political restraint, 
which has to be reinforced by laws. The 
technical barriers to nuclear proliferation 
are gradually crumbling; and while export 
controls are now helpful and even essential, 
we have to assume that their effectiveness 
will diminish in the years ahead. Hence, the 
only dike to hold back the flood is the politi- 
cal self-interest of sovereign countries. And 
the political inhibitions can be greatly re- 
inforced through international legal instru- 
ments — treaties and agreements — that will 
spell out and codify the mutual obligations. 

Whether or not a country turns to nuclear 
weapons depends, of course, on a combina- 
tion of capability and intent. Capability is 
governed by two factors: access to nuclear 
explosion technology, the principles of which 
are widely known, and access to nuclear 




October 21, 1974 


materials such as plutonium or enriched 
uranium, over which there are some controls. 

In the matter of nuclear fuels, it has been 
widely assumed that a country wishing to 
take the nuclear-weapons road would use 
plutonium, which is produced as a byproduct 
in electric power reactors and can then be 
reprocessed into plutonium usable for nu- 
clear explosives. There is, however, another 
possibility — that of enriching uranium. A 
relatively new technique, using centrifuges, 
may make this a more feasible route. The 
centrifuge process has proven to be effective, 
although the economics are not yet proven. 
A centrifuge plant is much smaller and less 
visible than the huge gaseous diffusion plant 
that we have used to enrich uranium in large 
quantities. Finally, we hear about a new 
possibility, involving the use of lasers to en- 
rich uranium. 

It is apparent that several of the industrial 
countries, like West Germany, Italy, Japan, 
and Canada, could produce nuclear arsenals 
of great power within a relatively short time. 
These countries with the greatest capabilities 
have taken clear political action, however, 
to indicate that they do not intend to pursue 
that course, by signing or ratifying the Non- 
proliferation Treaty and in other statements 
of their policies. 

What is the United States doing to pre- 
vent the further spread of nuclear weapons? 
First of all, we are strong supporters of the 
International Atomic Energy Agency in the 
application of its safeguards inspection pro- 
gram, which seeks to prevent the diversion of 
nuclear fuels from peaceful uses to weapons 
manufacture. We give them technical ad- 
vice and help them in devising instrumenta- 
tion to make their safeguards more effective. 
We also use our influence in the Agency to 
make its agreements with other countries as 
effective as possible. 

On the diplomatic front, we are naturally 
talking to some countries which have not 
ratified the Nonproliferation Treaty, point- 
ing out the advantages of their doing so. 

We are also preparing for the Nonpro- 
liferation Treaty Review Conference called 
for by the treaty, to be held by the parties in 

May 1975. The outcome of this conference 
could be important for the future of the 
treaty. It is very much to be hoped — and it 
seems possible — that by the time the review 
conference is held, a substantial portion of 
the key industrial states will be parties to 
the treaty. If this indeed happens and if the 
review conference evokes an impressive de- 
gree of solidarity among them in support of 
preferential treatment for treaty parties, 
then the Nonproliferation Treaty will be 
given a new lease on life. Like any interna- 
tional treaty, this one has to accord with 
the self-interest of the parties. For the 
countries that decided to forgo nuclear weap- 
ons, it is, in essence, a mutual pledge among 
many neighbors in many regions. It ex- 
presses the national self-interest of these 
countries not to initiate a nuclear arms com- 
petition at their doorstep. 

There are a few lines of policy and em- 
phasis which I would like to suggest: 

— We should provide more money for the 
safeguards regime of the International 
Atomic Energy Agency. I think Congress 
would now be receptive to this idea. 

— More emphasis should also be placed on 
measures of physical security against theft 
and sabotage. We have already briefed Con- 
gress on this subject, in connection with our 
nuclear assistance agreements with Egypt 
and Israel. While physical security is in- 
herently a national problem, the Internation- 
al Atomic Energy Agency can help in this 
respect by drawing up guidelines and insist- 
ing that agreements take physical security 
into account. 

— There is an obvious relationship between 
what the United States and the Soviet Union 
do in restraining their "vertical prolifera- 
tion" and the willingness of other countries 
to give up their own nuclear option. It is 
clearly important that the United States and 
the Soviet Union be able to demonstrate to 
these other countries that they can accom- 
plish effective limitations and reductions in 
their massive nuclear arsenals. 

— Many countries are now keenly inter- 
ested in nuclear reactors, particularly since 


Department of State Bulletin 

the increase in the cost of oil. In responding 
to this interest, we can seek to encourage 
multinational cooperation so as to strengthen 
the acceptability and reliability of safe- 
guards. Particularly, the processing of nu- 
clear fuel can best be done in cooperative 

For the longer run, new efforts will be 
needed to cope with the worldwide diffusion 
of nuclear technology. We can slow down 
the spread of nuclear materials suitable for 
destructive purposes, but we cannot stop it. 
We can rely on international safeguards to 
help us detect diversion of material from 
peaceful uses to destructive ones, but we 
cannot rely on these safeguards to prevent 
such diversion altogether. We can give full 
support to the Nonproliferation Treaty, but 
we cannot expect this treaty to cover all 
countries or all the risks inherent in the 
spread of nuclear technology. 

Thus, within a decade or two, nuclear ex- 
plosives might be acquired by a much larger 
number of governments than today — even 
by subnational groups. Our strategic forces, 
on which we now rely to deter deliberate at- 
tack from a major nuclear power, are not 
designed to protect the security of the United 
States in such a world. A more diffused avail- 
ability of nuclear explosives could lead to 
terrifying threats against the American 
people or disastrous destruction in our coun- 
try. At such a time, the pressures on Con- 
gress and the administration for the most 
drastic action would be enormous. 

Preventing a new dark age of unprece- 
dented violence will depend on the determi- 
nation and foresight we show today. We must 
not become disheartened. Our government 
had the courage to propose the Baruch plan ; 
it had the vision to create the International 
Atomic Energy Agency ; in had the farsight- 
edness to promote the Nonproliferation 
Treaty. There seems no reason why we 
should not be able to create the additional 
international institutions and to advance the 
necessary arms control measures which will 
enable us to live in a world of widespread 
nuclear technology. 

1973 Report on U.S. Participation 
in the U.N. Transmitted to Congress 

Message From President Ford 1 

To the Congress of the United States: 

I am pleased to send to the Congress the 
28th annual report on United States partici- 
pation in the work of the United Nations. 

This report, covering Calendar Year 1973, 
encompasses the wide range of activities car- 
ried on by the United Nations and its sub- 
sidiary organizations. It demonstrates the 
growing conviction of United Nations mem- 
bers that many problems of international 
concern are best resolved through multilat- 
eral action, utilizing the machinery of mature 
international institutions. 

In the fall of 1973 the United Nations dem- 
onstrated once again its ability to foster peace 
by the crucial role it played in the Middle 
East. Following the outbreak of war, the Se- 
curity Council arranged a ceasefire and de- 
ployed United Nations troops to supervise 
disengagement agreements between Israel 
and Egypt and, later, between Israel and 
Syria. We cannot know what might have 
happened in the absence of such United Na- 
tions action. However, it is clear that the ef- 
forts of the United Nations, combined with 
bilateral diplomacy, are still crucial to pro- 
moting a just and lasting settlement of the 
Middle East dispute. 

One area of increasing concern is the pro- 
duction and distribution of adequate supplies 
of food. Our concern with feeding the world 
can no longer be limited to relief activities in 
aid of victims of natural disasters. Popula- 
tion growth and better living standards have 
increased the total demand for food which 
in turn has increased the demand for energy 
sources and fertilizer. The pressure of these 
interlocking demands has pushed against lim- 
ited supplies and caused spiraling prices. 
This is a worldwide problem requiring world- 


1 Transmitted on Sept. 19 (text from White House 
press release); also printed as H. Doc. 93-360, 93d 
Cong., 2d sess., which includes the text of the report. 

October 21, 1974 


wide action for its solution. Secretary Kis- 
singer proposed to the United Nations Gen- 
eral Assembly in September 1973 that the 
organization sponsor a World Food Confer- 
ence. The General Assembly acted favorably 
on this proposal and the Conference will be 
held in Rome in November 1974. The United 
States also took an active participation in the 
preparation for the first United Nations Con- 
ference on World Population, convened in 
Bucharest in August 1974. 

The Third United Nations Conference on 
the Law of the Sea, which convened an orga- 
nizational session in December 1973, is an- 
other example of how the United Nations can 
be utilized to attack contemporary world 
problems. The goal of the Law of the Sea 
Conference is a comprehensive international 
convention to govern man's use of the oceans. 
We need new understandings to govern in- 
ternational navigation, rational management 
of the ocean's living and non-living resources, 
and the protection of the life-sustaining proc- 
esses of the marine environment. Success in 
the efforts to resolve conflicting claims over 
ocean jurisdiction would remove a major and 
growing source of conflict from the interna- 
tional arena. 

The regular economic and social activities 
of the United Nations' family of organiza- 
tions continued to absorb over 90 percent of 
its funds and personnel during 1973. In addi- 
tion to the traditional operational programs, 
many special conferences during the year 
provided opportunities for nations to enlarge 
their understanding of and work toward con- 
sensus on such major international economic 
and social issues as development assistance, 
the role of multinational corporations, com- 
modity agreements, and the economic rights 
and duties of states. Perhaps the most im- 
portant series of negotiations were those held 
to carry out the first biennial review and ap- 
praisal of the progress toward the goals of 
the Second United Nations Development Dec- 
ade. In these negotiations delegations from 
all parts of the world worked for months to 
formulate a report that refined the broad 
measures necessary to improve the world's 
economic and social situation. The United 

States played a leading role in these nego- 

Unfortunately, not all international prob- 
lems dealt with by the United Nations were 
successfully approached in 1973. For exam- 
ple, it is generally believed in the United 
States that terrorism against innocent third 
parties, including the hijacking of aircraft, 
is a matter of international concern that calls 
for international solutions. The divergence 
of political views among member states, how- 
ever, has made it impossible to agree on 
either a general definition of terrorism or a 
remedy for it. Despite the limit thus placed 
on the effectiveness of the United Nations 
forum in dealing with the problem, a start 
was made in 1973 with the adoption by the 
General Assembly of the Convention on the 
Prevention and Punishment of Crimes 
Against Internationally Protected Persons, 
Including Diplomatic Agents. On the other 
hand, neither the International Conference 
on Air Law nor the Assembly of the Interna- 
tional Civil Aviation Organization, which 
met simultaneously, made progress on meas- 
ures to improve security for aircraft passen- 

An important part of the United Nations 
record in 1973 was the admission to member- 
ship of the Federal Republic of Germany, the 
German Democratic Republic, and The Ba- 
hamas — admissions the United States sup- 
ported. The United Nations has thus become 
still more representative of the world com- 

Our participation in the United Nations 
reflects our fundamental belief that to assure 
a peaceful world it is necessary to cooperate 
with other nations in a multilateral frame- 
work on mutually agreed upon activities. This 
report records the successes and failures, the 
hopes and frustrations of many of those ac- 
tivities. Above all it records what we tried to 
accomplish through the United Nations to 
further the many interests that our citizens 
and our country share with the world com- 

Gerald R. Ford. 

The White House, September 19, 197 U. 


Department of State Bulletin 

President Ford Establishes 
Economic Policy Board 

Following are texts of a White House 
announcement issued on September 28 and 
an Executive order signed by President Ford 
on September 30. 


White House press release dated September 28 

President Ford announced on September 
28 the formation of a new Economic Policy 
Board, which will oversee the formulation, 
coordination, and implementation of all 
economic policy, and named Secretary of the 
Treasury William E. Simon as Chairman. 

Secretary Simon will act as the principal 
spokesman for the executive branch on mat- 
ters of economic policy. The new Board will 
be the focal point for economic policy deci- 
sionmaking, both domestic and international. 
Secretary Simon will also chair an Executive 
Committee of the Board, which will meet 

The President also announced the appoint- 
ment of L. William Seidman as Assistant 
to the President for Economic Affairs. In 
addition to a wide range of other duties, 
Mr. Seidman will serve as a member and 
Executive Director of the Economic Policy 
Board and its Executive Committee. In his 
new roles, Mr. Seidman will be responsible 
for coordinating the implementation of eco- 
nomic policy and providing liaison with the 
Presidential staff and with other govern- 
mental activities. 

Secretary Simon and Mr. Seidman will 
have responsibility for insuring that there 
is adequate coordination among existing and 
proposed committees relating to economic 
policy. Secretary Simon will serve as Chair- 
man, and Mr. Seidman as Deputy Chairman, 
of the Council on Wage and Price Stability 
as well as the Council on International Eco- 
nomic Policy, the National Advisory Council 
on International Economic Policy, the Na- 
tional Advisory Council on International 

Monetary and Financial Policies, and the 
President's Committee on East-West Trade 

The other members of the Economic Policy 
Board will be: 

Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger 

Secretary of the Interior Rogers C. B. Morton 

Secretary of Agriculture Earl L. Butz 

Secretary of Commerce Frederick B. Dent 

Secretary of Labor Peter J. Brennan 

Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Caspar 

W. Weinberger 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

James T. Lynn 
Secretary of Transportation Claude S. Brinegar 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

Roy L. Ash 
Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Alan 

Executive Director of the Council on International 

Economic Policy William D. Eberle 

Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Eberle, and a senior 
member of the Office of Management and 
Budget will serve as members of the Execu- 
tive Committee. Dr. Arthur F. Burns, Chair- 
man of the Federal Reserve Board, will 
attend both Board and Executive Committee 
meetings when appropriate. 


Establishing the President's Economic Policy 
Board, and for Other Purposes 

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the 
Constitution and laws of the United States, it is 
hereby ordered as follows: 

Section 1. There is hereby established the Presi- 
dent's Economic Policy Board (hereinafter referred 
to as the Board). 

Sec 2. The Board shall consist of the Secretary 
of the Treasury, who shall be its Chairman, the 
Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, 
the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Interior, 
the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of 
Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary 
of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of 
Transportation, the Director of the Office of Man- 
agement and Budget, the Chairman of the Council 
of Economic Advisors, and the Executive Director 
of the Council on International Economic Policy. 
The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the 



1 39 Fed. Reg. 35563. 

October 21, 1974 


Federal Reserve System is invited to attend meetings 
of the Board. 

Sec. 3. The Economic Policy Board shall provide 
advice to the President concerning all aspects of 
national and international economic policy, will over- 
see the formulation, coordination, and implementa- 
tion of all economic policy of the United States, and 
will serve as the focal point for economic policy 
decision-making. The Chairman of the Board shall 
act as the principal spokesman for the Executive 
Branch on matters of economic policy. 

Sec. 4. (a) There is hereby established the Execu- 
tive Committee of the Board. The Executive Com- 
mittee shall consist of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
who shall be its Chairman, the Assistant to the 
President for Economic Affairs, the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of 
the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Executive 
Director of the Council on International Economic 
Policy. The Chairman of the Board of Governors 
of the Federal Reserve System is invited to attend 
meetings of the Executive Committee. 

(b) The Executive Committee shall meet daily to 
consider matters involving responsibilities of the 

Sec. 5. The Assistant to the President for Eco- 
nomic Affairs shall be the Executive Director of the 
Board and of the Executive Committee, and, as such, 
shall be responsible for coordinating the imple- 
mentation of economic policy and providing liaison 
with the Presidential staff and with other Govern- 
mental activities. 

Sec. 6. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
be a member of the Council on Wage and Price 
Stability and be its Chairman. The Assistant to the 
President for Economic Affairs shall be a member 
of the Council and be its Deputy Chairman. 

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall be the 
Chairman of the Council on International Economic 
Policy. The Assistant to the President for Economic 
Affairs shall be a member of that Council and be its 
Deputy Chairman. 

(c) Section 1(b) of Executive Order No. 11269, 
as amended (prescribing the composition of the 
National Advisory Council on International Mone- 
tary and Financial Policies), is further amended by 
inserting after "the Secretary of the Treasury, who 
shall be Chairman of the Council," the following 
"the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, 
who shall be Deputy Chairman of the Council,". 

(d)(1) Section 1(1) of Executive Order No. 11789 
(prescribing the composition of the President's Com- 
mittee on East- West Trade Policy) is amended to 
read as follows: 

"(1) The Assistant to the President for Economic 

(2) Section 2 of that Order is amended to read 
as follows: 

"Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Treasury shall be 
the Chairman of the Committee, and the Assistant 

to the President for Economic Affairs shall be its 
Deputy Chairman." 

Sec. 7. All departments and agencies shall co- 
operate with the Board, including the Executive 
Committee thereof, and shall, to the extent permitted 
by law, provide it with such assistance and infor- 
mation as the Chairman or the Executive Director of 
the Board may request. 

fa~i/<9. fe/ 

The White House, September 30, 1971,. 

Department Urges Prompt Action 
on North Atlantic Air Fares 

Department Statement, September 2U 

Press release 377 dated September 24 

The Department welcomes the positive ac- 
tion of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) 
in undertaking to expedite consideration of 
the recent International Air Transport As- 
sociation (IATA) agreement on North At- 
lantic scheduled fares before expiration of 
the old agreement November 1. The Board's 
action was in the form of a letter from CAB 
Chairman [Robert D.] Timm sent September 
24 to the President of the European Civil 
Aviation Conference (ECAC). An ECAC 
resolution had called on governments to ap- 
prove these agreements on scheduled and 
nonscheduled (charter) prices without undue 
delay. In view of the serious financial prob- 
lems confronting our international air car- 
riers, the Department believes it imperative 
that governments move promptly to insure 
that there is no lengthy period of uncertainty 
regarding the establishment this winter of 
cost-related North Atlantic air fares. 

The CAB's announcement that it will move 
promptly toward a final decision on the fare 
package submitted September 5 for the 
Board's approval by the carriers of the Inter- 
national Air Transport Association should 
make it clear that U.S. Government action 
will be prompt and effective. 

We also note that the proposed IATA 
package is dependent on an agreement being 


Department of State Bulletin 

reached by the North Atlantic scheduled and 
charter carriers establishing a minimum 
charter price (charter floor). Discussions 
have been underway to this end for several 
months, but full agreement has not yet been 
reached. Failure to agree on the charter 
floor would threaten the agreement already 
reached on scheduled services. We would 
urge the carriers participating in the sched- 
uled-charter negotiations to resume their dis- 
cussions and try to move without further de- 
lay toward a final agreement. If the charter 
talks were to break down or if the partici- 
pants were unable to resolve their differences 
within a reasonable time before expiration of 
the present IATA fares, the Department is 
prepared to initiate direct consultations or 
negotiations with foreign governments as a 
means of removing remaining obstacles to 
the early institution for the winter season of 
a rational airfare system on the North At- 

U.S. and U.K. Agree To Reduce 
Excess Airline Capacity 

Representatives of U.S. and U.K. Govern- 
ment agencies met at Washington September 
17-19. Following are texts of a Department 
announcement and a joint U.S.-U.K. press 
statement issued September 20. 

Press release 369 dated September 20 


The Department of State welcomes the 
agreement reached between U.S. and U.K. 
aviation delegations this week which will re- 
sult in the improvement of the economic cli- 
mate for U.S. airlines operations in the North 
Atlantic by cutting down excess airline ca- 
pacity between the United States and the 
United Kingdom. 

This agreement has been undertaken in 
accordance with the U.S. action plan ap- 
proved by President Ford on September 18 
to improve the competitive climate in which 
Pan Am and our other international air car- 

October 21, 1974 

riers operate. The Department of State is 
initiating early consultations with other Eu- 
ropean governments to achieve the elimina- 
tion of capacity excess to market demand on 
services to these countries. 


Aviation delegations representing the 
United Kingdom and United States Govern- 
ments reached agreement this week on the 
need for vigorous action to restore profitable 
airline operations in the North Atlantic mar- 
ket by eliminating excess capacity and es- 
tablishing a cost-related fare structure. 

Traffic demand across the North Atlantic 
for the coming winter season is expected to 
decline by some 10-20 percent over last win- 

In accordance with the objective agreed by 
the two governments, U.S. and British air- 
lines providing scheduled services between 
the two countries have agreed to capacity re- 
ductions for the winter season November 
1974 through April 1975 of some 20 percent 
compared with the equivalent period of last 
year. This covers services between London 
and New York, Boston, Washington, Phila- 
delphia, Detroit, Miami, Chicago, and Los 
Angeles. Despite these substantial reduc- 
tions, the airlines are confident that their 
services this winter will fully meet the pub- 
lic need. Consideration will be given later on 
to appropriate measures to rationalize ca- 
pacity between the two countries for next 

During the consultations the two delega- 
tions expressed their full support for the cur- 
rent efforts of the North Atlantic airlines to 
develop an improved airline fare structure, 
taking account of the increased costs, par- 
ticularly for fuel, being encountered by the 
industry. They welcomed the substantial 
progress already made towards establishing 
cost-related fares and minimum charter 

These actions reflect the determination of 
both governments to return the North Atlan- 
tic market to profitable conditions. 






General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency 
Holds 18th Session at Vienna 

The 18th session of the General Confer- 
ence of the International Atomic Energy 
Agency (IAEA) was held at Vienna Sep- 
tember 16-20. Following is a statement made 
before the conference on September 17 by 
Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, Chairman of the U.S. 
Atomic Energy Commission, who was chair- 
man of the U.S. delegation. 

U.S. AEC press release dated September 17 

Mr. President [Gen. (ret.) Fernando Me- 
dina, of the Philippines] : It is a great pleas- 
ure to congratulate you, on behalf of my 
government, upon your election as our pre- 
siding officer. And for my part, once again 
I am proud to represent the United States 
at the Agency's General Conference. It has 
been a pleasure to renew personal acquaint- 
ances with many of you and to meet dele- 
gates whom I had not known before. 

Director General [A. Sigvard] Eklund and 
the staff of the Secretariat deserve high 
praise and commendation for their responses 
to the difficult, urgent, and complex demands 
made upon them during the year just over. 
The initiative, imagination, and professional 
competence of the Agency probably will be 
tested even more in the years ahead. As his 
address clearly indicated, the Director Gen- 
eral knows full well that these challenges 
must be faced and surmounted. 

It is my privilege now to read the follow- 
ing message from President Ford : 

On this, my first occasion to address the General 
Conference of the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, I want to emphasize the strong and affirm- 
ative role the United States has played in support 
of the IAEA. Our policy was initiated under Presi- 
dent Eisenhower, sustained under succeeding Presi- 
dents and will continue. 

The IAEA helps all nations in promoting world- 
wide peaceful development of nuclear energy, meet- 
ing the challenge of increased energy requirements, 
protecting both man and his environment and pro- 
viding assurance against diversion of this resource 
for nuclear explosives. 

The Agency exercises important responsibilities 
in carrying out safeguards in accordance with the 
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weap- 
ons, which I regard as one of the pillars of United 
States foreign policy. I wish to reaffirm my Govern- 
ment's offer to permit the application of IAEA 
safeguards to any U.S. nuclear activity except those 
of direct national security significance. This offer 
will be implemented when safeguards are being 
broadly applied under the Treaty in other industrial 
states. Our offer was made in order to encourage 
the widest possible adherence to the Treaty by dem- 
onstrating to other nations that they would not be 
placed at a commercial disadvantage by reason of 
the application of safeguards under the Treaty. 

I have become increasingly aware of the world- 
wide expectation that nuclear energy should provide 
a far greater portion of power needs and of the 
world-wide concern about nuclear safeguards. The 
Member States of the IAEA and Agency staff face 
important challenges in simultaneously expanding 
nuclear power production and safeguarding its fuel 

We in the United States look forward to continu- 
ing, and in fact increased, IAEA contributions in 
bringing the benefits of the peaceful atom to all 
mankind and in bringing about closer collaboration 
among the nations of the world. 

It is a pleasure to extend to all delegates to this 
Conference my warmest greetings and best wishes 
for a successful meeting. 

President Ford has clearly reaffirmed the 
strong support we give to the Agency's pro- 

As many of you may recall, the U.S. 
Atoms for Peace program and the establish- 
ment of this great international Agency 
were proposed by President Eisenhower in 
his historic message before the U.N. General 


Department of State Bulletin 

Assembly in December 1953. The develop- 
ment of peaceful uses of atomic energy dur- 
ing the subsequent 20 years has been char- 
acterized by an impressive record of interna- 
tional cooperation. 

The ability of many countries to enter the 
nuclear age has been facilitated by the work 
of this Agency. There are 104 member na- 
tions in IAEA. There are nearly 50 countries 
who are actively probing the nature of mat- 
ter and investigating the many effects and 
applications of radioactivity with research 
reactors. By the end of this year, the Agency 
has estimated that there will be 121 opera- 
tional power reactors in 17 IAEA member 
countries other than the United States, with 
a total installed capacity of nearly 32,000 
megawatts electric. And similar Agency pro- 
jections this year show that by 1980 these 
figures will have risen to 244 power reactors 
in 25 member countries, with a total in- 
stalled capacity of over 125,000 megawatts 

The significant role of the IAEA in foster- 
ing dissemination of nuclear knowledge and 
encouraging the responsible use of the tech- 
nology that arises from it has been a remark- 
able accomplishment in the short period of 
20 years. The importance of the IAEA cer- 
tainly will increase in the years to come. 

U.S. Support for IAEA Activities 

Now, what does lie ahead? The Director 
General has provided us with a carefully 
conceived and thought-provoking analysis of 
the problems facing nuclear energy through- 
out the world. 

The United States strongly supports a 
broad review, as described by the Director 
General, of the prospects and problems of 
nuclear power in a world energy situation 
that is increasingly complex. As the availa- 
bility of nuclear power for generating elec- 
tricity expands in both developed and devel- 
oping countries, problems of safety, fuel 
supply, and waste management will grow. 
They will require cooperation and exchange 
of information on an ever-broadening scale. 

The United States supports the Agency's 

expanded program in the safety field. As you 
know, we have just published in draft form 
results of a two-year independent study of 
safety in U.S. commercial nuclear power 
plants, referred to as the Rasmussen study. 
This definitive analysis finds the risks of se- 
rious accidents to be extremely low. Further- 
more, even if an improbable accident should 
occur, the likelihood of deaths or illness or 
financial losses is far smaller than from sev- 
eral types of non-nuclear accidents to which 
people are already commonly exposed. The 
main report and a summary have been dis- 
tributed to atomic energy organizations 
throughout the world, and a full set of the 
14 volumes still in draft form has been pro- 
vided to the Agency. We invite your review 
and comments. Detailed attention to safe de- 
sign, construction, and operation of nuclear 
plants is essential everywhere because an ac- 
cident in any nation would be of concern to 

The less developed countries should bene- 
fit considerably from expanded IAEA activi- 
ties in providing assistance in planning for 
nuclear power projects. The IAEA guidebook 
being circulated in draft at this General Con- 
ference, and the advisory services that the 
Agency provides, make this Agency the lead- 
ing international body for assistance in eval- 
uating an introduction of nuclear power in 
less developed countries. 

With regard to fuel supply and fuel cycle 
services, the United States, as a major sup- 
plier of enriched uranium, views its respon- 
sibility in this area very seriously. The U.S. 
Atomic Energy Commission has recently 
contracted up to the present limit of its au- 
thority to meet the needs of approximately 
355 domestic and foreign power reactors 
(representing about 320,000 megawatts). 
These contracts cover reactors that will re- 
quire initial fuel deliveries through June 30, 
1982. We are also examining the methods we 
will employ to extend our capacity so that 
we continue to serve the international market 
reliably for decades to come. 

We recognize the need for much better 
data on uranium resources and enrichment 
capacity, and we fully support the Director 

October 21, 1974 


General's call for a major international con- 
ference in 1977 on prospects and problems 
for nuclear energy. We will, of course, par- 
ticipate actively in such a conference that 
will deal broadly with many issues in the nu- 
clear field. 

High-level radioactive wastes continue to 
pose long-term problems. We welcome the 
Board action on September 13 to define the 
kinds of wastes that are unsuitable for dump- 
ing at sea, pursuant to the London Conven- 
tion. I can see the Agency playing a signifi- 
cant role in the development of standards 
and safety criteria and perhaps also of meth- 
odology for the handling of these wastes. 

Technical Assistance Programs 

The technical assistance programs of the 
IAEA have long been of great value to many 
countries. We continue to support and par- 
ticipate in the Agency's multifaceted pro- 
grams. For example, as an important early 
step in helping to prepare the less developed 
countries to use nuclear power, the United 
States has proposed to cosponsor with the 
IAEA a two- to three-week course in the 
principles and techniques of regulating nu- 
clear power for public health, safety, and en- 
vironmental protection. This course, pro- 
posed to be held at the U.S. Atomic Energy 
Commission headquarters, would assist rep- 
resentatives of perhaps 20-30 countries to 
organize and administer effective national 
energy regulatory programs. U.S. experi- 
ence in this area has been wide ranging and 
intense and should be of considerable inter- 
est and utility to those member states plan- 
ning to embark on nuclear power programs. 
We fully recognize the essential role of spe- 
cialized manpower training in this relatively 
new area as well as those in which the IAEA 
has been engaged for some time. 

In the same connection, it is most gratify- 
ing that the Agency has reached agreement 
on its program for the preparation of a set 
of standards, in the form of codes of prac- 
tice and safety guides, for nuclear power 
reactors. Ambassador Tape [Gerald F. Tape, 

U.S. Representative to the IAEA] made 
clear at the time the Board approved this 
program last Friday the great importance 
which my government attaches to this activ- 
ity. The program will have the strong sup- 
port of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 
and we hope that it will receive similar sup- 
port from appropriate organizations in other 
member states. We are prepared to make im- 
portant contributions, including expert serv- 
ices without cost to the Agency, to help ac- 
complish the objectives of this program. 

Also, may I suggest a possible new empha- 
sis for IAEA, in close cooperation with the 
World Health Organization, to bring to de- 
veloping countries the full benefits of nu- 
clear medicine. Adequately trained medical 
personnel exist already in many countries, 
and the requisite radioactive materials can 
be shipped with modern air transportation. 
What appear to be lacking are sturdy, reli- 
able, low-cost, yet sensitive instruments for 
diagnostic and therapeutic uses in a wide 
variety of facilities and environmental con- 
ditions. We suggest that the IAEA prepare 
an inventory of the potential world market 
for such equipment as a stimulus to manu- 

The United States renews its pledge, for 
the 16th consecutive year, to donate up to 
50 thousand dollars' worth of special nuclear 
materials for use in Agency projects. As an- 
nounced at the June Board of Governors 
meeting, parties to the Nonproliferation 
Treaty (NPT), will be given preferential 
consideration in the donation of these mate- 

We continue to support the financing by 
voluntary contributions of the technical as- 
sistance program. We are confident that vol- 
untary contributions bring more funds and 
more in-kind assistance than can assess- 
ments. The U.S. cash and in-kind assistance 
last year amounted to about $2 million. For 
the coming year, subject to governmental ap- 
propriations, my government intends to con- 
tribute generously to the cash target and to 
make additional in-kind grants. Beginning 
in 1975 we intend to give preference in allo- 


Department of State Bulletin 

cation of in-kind grants to developing coun- 
tries that are parties to the NPT. We con- 
sider both of these actions consistent with 
our obligations under article IV of the NPT. 1 

Safeguarding Nuclear Materials 

Events of the past year have caused a dra- 
matic and renewed interest in nuclear en- 
ergy as all nations reassess their require- 
ments for energy supplies. And so I wish now 
to focus discussion upon what I believe is 
the most serious challenge facing this Agency 
and all of us interested in nuclear energy: 
The need to design and apply even more ef- 
fective safeguards to nuclear materials and 
facilities in order to deter proliferation of 
nuclear-weapon capability and to provide ad- 
ditional measures to prevent the theft of nu- 
clear materials. 

Director General Eklund has taken the lead 
in addressing safeguards and proliferation 
issues at this General Conference. I am hope- 
ful that my remarks will generate additional 
comments from other delegates. These re- 
marks reflect policy developments in my own 
country, bilateral discussions with other na- 
tions, and a desire to share these views with 
all of you here. 

Nations that export and nations that pur- 
chase nuclear technology, equipment, and 
fuels both have much to gain by making the 
international nuclear situation more secure. 
We are concerned about export practices, rea- 
sonable control of the entire fuel cycle, physi- 
cal security of nuclear materials, safeguards 
accountability for nuclear materials, clearly 
defined international responses to acts or 
threats of nuclear terrorism, and implica- 
tions of peaceful nuclear explosions for nu- 
clear proliferation. 

We continue to endorse fully the Nonpro- 
liferation Treaty and urge that nations which 
still have not become parties to the treaty do 
so as soon as is feasible for them. We also 
hope that nonparties, as well as parties to 

1 For text of the treaty, see Bulletin of July 1, 
1968, p. 8. 

the NPT, can join here at the IAEA in a 
concerted effort to enhance security and safe- 
guards for nuclear plants and materials 
throughout the world. Let us examine a few 
aspects of this situation in a bit more detail : 

1. Conditions for export. Some of the ma- 
jor nuclear-exporting countries, including the 
United States, have reached agreement on 
procedures and criteria that serve as mini- 
mum common standards for implementation 
of the requirements of article III. 2 of the 
NPT, which calls for IAEA safeguards in 
connection with nuclear materials and equip- 
ment exported to non-nuclear-weapon states. 
Furthermore, the United States, United 
Kingdom, and U.S.S.R. have agreed, begin- 
ning October 1, to report to the IAEA de- 
tailed information on their export and im- 
port of nuclear materials to and from non- 
nuclear-weapon states. 

We recognize that many nations have well- 
trained scientists and engineers capable of 
applying or developing sophisticated nuclear 
technology for military as well as for peace- 
ful purposes. It is to their great credit that 
so many of these nations have chosen not to 
develop nuclear weapons. As Ambassador 
Tape emphasized at the June Board of Gov- 
ernors meeting, the use in or for any nuclear 
explosive device of any material or equip- 
ment subject to an agreement with the United 
States for cooperation for civil uses of atomic 
energy is precluded. We intend to maintain 
this policy, and we believe that other export- 
ing countries share the view that explicit 
agreements and effective verification are es- 

2. Control of the fuel cycle. With the pro- 
posed and planned sale of reactors to coun- 
tries in regions throughout the world, includ- 
ing areas that are politically troubled, ques- 
tions have been raised about the impact of 
such sales on proliferation. If each country 
that moves into nuclear-generated electricity 
is faced with the necessity to develop its own 
means of handling the spent fuel, then each 
country will have to develop the technology 
for this purpose. As an alternative, the es- 


October 21, 1974 


tablishment of internationally approved fa- 
cilities to handle all the spent fuel arising 
from power reactors may be helpful to par- 
ticipating countries. It may also be reassur- 
ing to the rest of the world. 

Attention must be directed to the different 
types of fuel cycles as well. In the United 
States our experience has been mainly with 
the light water reactor using low-enriched 
uranium. Cycles using natural uranium and 
heavy water moderation, uranium and thor- 
ium, highly enriched uranium, or uranium 
and plutonium each will require careful anal- 
ysis to provide the best safeguarding meth- 
ods and most efficient handling. Each fuel 
cycle has different degrees of vulnerability 
and should be analyzed from that point of 
view also. In such analyses the member 
states and the staff of the IAEA could make 
great contributions. The United States is 
committed to such efforts on a national basis 
and will be pleased to participate in interna- 
tional activities in this area. 

3. Physical security. In the face of terror- 
ist activity in many places around the world, 
we have taken action in the United States to 
enhance significantly the physical security at 
AEC and AEC-licensed facilities and for ma- 
terials during transport. We encourage other 
nations to do the same. Widespread publicity 
concerning details of security plans would be 
unwise, but through appropriate technical 
working groups we would be pleased to share 
useful aspects of our approaches to greater 
physical security. 

In addition to improving conditions at ex- 
isting locations, we anticipate that impor- 
tant changes can be incorporated into con- 
struction designs to enhance physical secu- 
rity in new facilities. The booklet "Recom- 
mendations for the Physical Protection of 
Nuclear Materials," published by the IAEA 
in 1972, provides useful guidelines and a ba- 
sis for further IAEA recommendations. 

We support the Director General's sugges- 
tion that prospects for an international 
agreement on minimum standards for physi- 
cal security be explored. Further, we agree 
with his recommendation that the Agency 
prepare itself to serve as a source for advice 

and assistance to those nations that recog- 
nize the desirability of improving their ca- 
pability in physical security systems. 

4. Safeguards accountability for nuclear 
materials. The IAEA has taken the lead for 
many years in safeguards accountability. 
Further improvements in methods can be an- 
ticipated and increased attention must be 
paid to correction of deficiencies identified in 
the process. As President Ford has reaf- 
firmed, we are prepared to implement our 
offer to permit the Agency to apply its safe- 
guards to any of the nuclear activities in 
the United States other than those with di- 
rect national security significance. We have 
offered to permit such safeguards when they 
are applied broadly in non-nuclear-weapon 
countries, in order to demonstrate our belief 
that there is no risk to proprietary informa- 
tion and no danger of suffering commercial 
disadvantage under NPT safeguards. 

5. Peaceful nuclear explosions (PNE's). 
The use of PNE's is a highly complicated 
matter, with ramifications under the Limited 
Test Ban Treaty in the case of surface exca- 
vation, and with importance to the defining 
of threshold and complete test ban treaties. 
The IAEA has taken important actions to 
facilitate the exchange of information and to 
anticipate the needs for services. At the 
Board of Governors meeting last Friday, ini- 
tial procedures were approved for Agency 
response to requests from members for such 
services. Also the Board authorized the Di- 
rector General to establish within the Secre- 
tariat, at a suitable time, a separate organi- 
zational unit for implementing an interna- 
tional service for nuclear explosions for 
peaceful purposes under appropriate inter- 
national control. 

I would like to emphasize the need for in- 
depth studies to establish the feasibility and 
desirability of using peaceful nuclear explo- 
sions in any project under consideration. 
The United States stands ready to contribute 
to the planning and performance of such 
feasibility studies. Where these studies dem- 
onstrate the practicability of conducting a 
peaceful nuclear explosion project consistent 
with the provisions of pertinent treaties or 


Department of State Bulletin 

agreements, we are prepared to meet our ob- 
ligations under article V of the NPT to pro- 
vide PNE services at prices that will exclude 
any charges for research and development. 

In closing, let me say that, clearly, the role 
of nuclear power is being accepted increas- 
ingly around the world and that significant 
progress has been made in enhancing reactor 
safety. I am confident that cooperative in- 
ternational effort will meet the serious chal- 
lenge of safeguarding nuclear materials and 
facilities as the benefits of nuclear energy 
are brought to many more countries. 

Let us resolve to attack these problems 
with all the good will and intelligence of 
which mankind is capable. 

U.S. Calls for Worldwide Commitment 
To Assist Poorer Nations 

Following is a statement by John Scali, 
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United 
Nations, made on September 27 before the 
first ministerial meeting of potential con- 
tributors to the United Nations Emergency 
Program, established by the sixth special 
session of the General Assembly. 

USUN press release 120 dated September 27 

I am pleased to reaffirm what President 
Ford said in addressing the U.N. Assembly 
last week : That our government will not only 
maintain but increase the amount of funds 
we will spend for food shipments to other 

The exact sum, as well as the quantities of 
food to be provided, is still being reviewed 
at the highest levels of my government in an 
effort to maximize our response despite the 
new weather problems which have affected 
our late harvests. 

The final figures will depend on coopera- 
tion by our Congress, the weather, and assist- 
ance in holding back the tide of inflation 
which threatens all. It is only too evident 
that recent rises in the price of oil, food, 
and fertilizer have created severe hardships 
for all nations. 

The richer nations, however, can cut their 
consumption of food or fuel; and more im- 
portantly, they can pay the new, higher 
prices by increasing their exports or their 
borrowing. For the poorer nations, on the 
other hand, reduced consumption can mean 
mass starvation and economic collapse. These 
countries cannot, for the most part, increase 
their exports significantly in the short run, 
nor do they have the credit to finance even 
minimum consumption at the new and higher 

Clearly the only long-term solution is to 
increase the supply of critically needed com- 
modities and lower their prices sufficiently to 
put them within the reach of all. Such a 
policy is in the real interests of not only 
the consuming nations, but of those who are 
the major producers. Fast profits may be 
made by temporary restrictions on produc- 
tion, but over the long run only a prosperous, 
dependable, and expanding market can pro- 
tect the producer against equally dramatic 
losses in the future. 

The United States is committed to a policy 
of expanding supply to meet legitimate de- 
mand. We are going all out to increase 
American food production. We are seeking 
to plant every acre which can produce food 
for a hungry world, and every planted field 
is now being harvested. 

Unhappily, however, inflation is a global 
problem, and it requires a global response. 
Thus, in about a month the United States 
will join with other nations in Rome to 
determine what steps we can take in common 
to dramatically increase global food supplies 
and to put the price of bread within the 
reach of every man. 

Just as no single nation can hope to con- 
tend with the force of global inflation, so no 
price reduction of any single commodity will 
be able to reverse the current trend. 

We believe therefore that oil producers and 
oil consumers must cooperate in the same 
way that food producers and consumers are 
doing to meet legitimate world demand for 
fuel at prices which the poor, as well as the 
rich, can afford. 

We are meeting here today, however, not 





October 21, 1974 


to focus on the long-range solution of the 
current world economic crisis but, rather, 
to determine what immediate steps can be 
taken to prevent the world's poorest nations 
from being overwhelmed even as we talk. 

The United States believes that the pri- 
mary responsibility for helping those nations 
whose economies are being devastated by 
higher oil prices rests with the oil-producing 
states. Nevertheless, we will not turn a deaf 
ear to the appeals of those in real need. 
In the 12-month period which ended in June 
1974, U.S. aid to the countries which Secre- 
tary General Waldheim has listed as the 
"most seriously affected" amounted to $714 
million. During that same period, the United 
States provided another $2 billion in aid to 
other countries, many of which have also 
suffered greatly as the result of higher oil 
and other prices. 

For the next 12 months — that is, through 
June of 1975 — the U.S. Government has 
asked Congress for nearly $1 billion in aid 
for those countries on the Secretary Gen- 
eral's list of most seriously affected. We 
have taken this step to increase our already 
substantial assistance to these countries at 
a time when we are trying to cut our Federal 
budget and economize in the face of inflation. 

The American people and the American 
Congress have responded generously to ap- 
peals for help in the past. I believe that they 
will continue to do so, even at a time when 
our ability to help is increasingly limited. 
But we cannot be expected, nor should we be 
asked, to shoulder this burden alone. 

My government welcomes the statements 
from a number of oil-producing countries 
announcing various forms of aid. We believe, 
however, that far more can and must be 
done. We encourage, therefore, further com- 
mitments from all states in a position to 
contribute, and particularly from those na- 
tions whose new wealth is growing so rapid- 
ly that it challenges their ability to spend it 

As the single largest provider of aid in 
the world for so many years, the United 
States has already established various bi- 

lateral and multilateral channels for assist- 
ance to countries on the Secretary General's 
list. We believe that our assistance will be 
most effective if it continues to flow through 
these channels. We recognize, however, that 
donors who have not yet established aid pro- 
grams may find the new United Nations 
Emergency Program, or the proposed Special 
Fund of the Secretary General, to be a use- 
ful and effective means for channeling their 
new aid. 

In speaking frankly, as President Ford 
and Secretary of State Kissinger have done, 
about the need to control inflation, the United 
States seeks to draw world attention to the 
grim facts. We wish not to force confronta- 
tion, but to generate constructive coopera- 
tion. We believe that only by working to- 
gether can the world community stop infla- 
tion, increase economic development, and 
create the more just world order which we 
all seek. We are calling, therefore, on others 
to join us in this effort. Let us go forward 
together in a spirit of friendship, in an at- 
mosphere of mutual respect, and with a 
genuine belief that the interests of all na- 
tions can best be reconciled in a more pros- 
perous and stable world. 

U.S. Welcomes Bangladesh, Grenada, 
and Guinea-Bissau to the U.N. 

Folloxving is a statement made in the U.N. 
General Assembly by U.S. Representative W. 
Tapley Bennett, Jr., on September 17. 

USUN press release 116 dated September 17 

Mr. President [Abdelaziz Bouteflika, of 
Algeria] : I would like to offer my sincere 
congratulations and those of the United 
States to you as you assume the Presidency 
of this 29th session of the General Assembly. 

As the Representative of the host country, 
I have the great honor of welcoming three 
new members to this parliament of the world. 
Although Bangladesh, Grenada, and Guinea- 


Department of State Bulletin 

Bissau are located in three very different re- 
gions of this planet, they jointly share a de- 
sire to participate in this organization. Noth- 
ing could symbolize more dramatically the 
universality of man's aspirations for which 
the United Nations stands. 

The United States recognized the Govern- 
ment of the People's Republic of Bangladesh 
on April 4, 1972. Formal diplomatic rela- 
tions were established on May 18 of that 
year. My government has had continuous 
representation in Dacca since 1949. Through 
these years, ties of trade, shared concern for 
economic development, and personal friend- 
ships have grown even stronger. Consequent- 
ly the U.S. Government has taken particular 
satisfaction in the development of the friend- 
ly bilateral relations which now exist be- 
tween our two countries. 

The American and Grenadan peoples have 
had warm and cooperative relations through 
the years. We share a deep interest in the af- 
fairs of the Caribbean region. We have been 
and will continue to be good neighbors. On 
February 7 of this year my government wel- 
comed Grenada into the family of independ- 
ent nations, and we wish Grenada well as 
she travels the road of independence. 

Now Guinea-Bissau joins this world body 
as the culmination of a major historical 
process. As President Ford stated, the U.S. 
Government looks forward to a productive 
and friendly relationship with the Republic 
of Guinea-Bissau, which we recognized on 
September 10. In the months and years 
ahead, the United States hopes to broaden 
and strengthen the bonds between the gov- 
ernments and peoples of our two countries. 
We look forward to the constructive contri- 
bution Guinea-Bissau will make to the im- 
portant work of the United Nations. 

The President of the United States will 
speak to this Assembly tomorrow, and I 
would at this time like to express the hope 
of my government that the 29th session of 
the General Assembly will be a productive 
one where we will take new steps to move 
from ideological confrontation toward re- 
solving of differences among nations. 

October 21, 1974 

Agenda of the 29th Regular Session 
of the U.N. General Assembly * 

1. Opening of the session by the Chairman of the 
delegation of Ecuador. 

2. Minute of silent prayer or meditation. 

3. Credentials of representatives to the twenty- 
ninth session of the General Assembly: 

(a) Appointment of the Credentials Commit- 

(b) Report of the Credentials Committee. 

4. Election of the President. 

5. Constitution of the Main Committees and elec- 
tion of officers. 

6. Election of the Vice-Presidents. 

7. Notification by the Secretary-General under 
Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the 
United Nations. 

8. Adoption of the agenda. 

9. General debate. 

10. Report of the Secretary-General on the work 
of the Organization. 

11. Report of the Security Council. 

12. Report of the Economic and Social Council. 

13. Report of the Trusteeship Council. 

14. Report of the International Court of Justice. 

15. Report of the International Atomic Energy 

16. Election of five non-permanent members of the 
Security Council. 

17. Election of eighteen members of the Economic 
and Social Council. 

18. Election of fifteen members of the Industrial 
Development Board. 

19. Election of nineteen members of the Governing 
Council of the United Nations Environment 

20. Strengthening of the role of the United Nations 
with regard to the maintenance and consolida- 
tion of international peace and security, the 
development of co-operation among all nations 
and the promotion of the rules of international 
law in relations between States: report of the 

21. Co-operation between the United Nations and 
the Organization of African Unity: report of 
the Secretary-General. 

22. Admission of new Members to the United 

23. Implementation of the Declaration on the 
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries 
and Peoples: report of the Special Committee 
on the Situation with regard to the Implemen- 
tation of the Declaration on the Granting of 
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 

1 Adopted by the Assembly on Sept. 21 (U.N. doc. 




24. Reduction of the military budgets of States 
permanent members of the Security Council by 
10 per cent and utilization of part of the funds 
thus saved to provide assistance to developing 

(a) Report of the Special Committee on the 
Distribution of the Funds Released as a 
Result of the Reduction of Military 

(b) Report of the Secretary-General. 

25. Restoration of the lawful rights of the Royal 
Government of National Union of Cambodia in 
the United Nations. 

26. Third United Nations Conference on the Law of 
the Sea. 

27. Napalm and other incendiary weapons and all 
aspects of their possible use: report of the 

28. Chemical and bacteriological (biological) 
weapons: report of the Conference of the 
Committee on Disarmament. 

29. Urgent need for cessation of nuclear and ther- 
monuclear tests and conclusion of a treaty 
designed to achieve a comprehensive test ban: 
report of the Conference of the Committee on 

30. Implementation of General Assembly resolution 
3079 (XXVIII) concerning the signature and 
ratification of Additional Protocol II of the 
Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 
in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco): report 
of the Secretary-General. 

31. Implementation of the Declaration of the In- 
dian Ocean as a Zone of Peace: report of the 
Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean. 

32. International co-operation in the peaceful uses 
of outer space: report of the Committee on 
the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. 

33. Preparation of an international convention on 
principles governing the use by States of artifi- 
cial earth satellites for direct television broad- 
casting: report of the Committee on the Peace- 
ful Uses of Outer Space. 

34. World Disarmament Conference: report of the 
Ad Hoc Committee on the World Disarmament 

35. General and complete disarmament: report of 
the Conference of the Committee on Disarma- 

36. Implementation of the Declaration on the 
Strengthening of International Security: re- 
port of the Secretary-General. 

37. Policies of apartheid of the Government of 
South Africa: 

(a) Reports of the Special Committee on 

(b) Report of the Secretary-General. 

38. United Nations Relief and Works Agency for 
Palestine Refugees in the Near East: 

(a) Report of the Commissioner-General; 

(b) Report of the Working Group on the 
Financing of the United Nations Relief 
and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees 
in the Near East; 

(c) Report of the United Nations Conciliation 
Commission for Palestine; 

(d) Report of the Secretary-General. 

39. Comprehensive review of the whole question of 
peace-keeping operations in all their aspects: 
report of the Special Committee on Peace- 
keeping Operations. 

40. Report of the Special Committee to Investigate 
Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights 
of the Population of the Occupied Territories. 

41. Effects of atomic radiation: report of the 
United Nations Scientific Committee on the 
Effects of Atomic Radiation. 

42. United Nations Conference on Trade and 
Development: report of the Trade and Develop- 
ment Board. 

43. United Nations Industrial Development Organi- 
zation : 

(a) Report of the Industrial Development 
Board ; 

(b) Second General Conference of the United 
Nations Industrial Development Organiza- 
tion: report of the Executive Director; 

(c) Establishment of a United Nations indus- 
trial development fund: report of the 
Secretary-General ; 

(d) Confirmation of the appointment of the 
Executive Director of the United Nations 
Industrial Development Organization. 

44. United Nations Institute for Training and Re- 
search: report of the Executive Director. 

45. Operational activities for development: 

(a) United Nations Development Programme; 

(b) United Nations Capital Development 

(c) Technical co-operation activities under- 
taken by the Secretary-General; 

(d) United Nations Volunteers programme; 

(e) United Nations Fund for Population Ac- 

(f ) United Nations Children's Fund; 

(g) World Food Programme. 

46. United Nations Environment Programme: 

(a) Report of the Governing Council; 

(b) United Nations Conference-Exposition on 
Human Settlements: report of the Secre- 
tary-General ; 

(c) Criteria governing multilateral financing ' 
of housing and human settlements: report 
of the Secretary-General. 

47. Reduction of the increasing gap between the 
developed countries and the developing coun- 

48. Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of 

49. Economic co-operation among developing coun- 


Department of State Bulletin 

















tries: report of the Secretary-General. 64. 

Quantification of scientific and technological 
activities related to development, including the 
definition of the quantitative targets contem- 
plated in paragraph 63 of the International 
Development Strategy for the Second United 
Nations Development Decade. 
United Nations University: report of the Uni- 
versity Council. 

Human rights in armed conflicts: protection of gg 

journalists engaged in dangerous missions in 
areas of armed conflict. 

Elimination of all forms of racial discrimina- 

(a) Decade for Action to Combat Racism and 
Racial Discrimination; 

(b) Report of the Committee on the Elimina- 
tion of Racial Discrimination; 

(c) Status of the International Convention on 
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial 
Discrimination: report of the Secretary- 

Elimination of all forms of religious intoler- 

Importance of the universal realization of the 
right of peoples to self-determination and of 
the speedy granting of independence to colonial 
countries and peoples for the effective guaran- 
tee and observance of human rights: report of 
the Secretary-General. 

Human rights and scientific and technological 
developments: report of the Secretary-General. 
Freedom of information: 

(a) Draft Declaration on Freedom of Informa- 

(b) Draft Convention on Freedom of Informa- 

Status of the International Covenant on Eco- 
nomic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Interna- 
tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
and the Optional Protocol to the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: report 
of the Secretary-General. 

Report of the United Nations High Commis- 
sioner for Refugees. 

Assistance in cases of natural disaster and 
other disaster situations: 

(a) Office of the United Nations Disaster Re- 
lief Co-ordinator: report of the Secretary- 

(b) Aid to the Sudano-Sahelian populations 
threatened with famine: report of the 
Secretary-General. 69. 

United Nations conference for an international 

convention on adoption law. 

National experience in achieving far-reaching 

social and economic changes for the purpose 

of social progress. 

Unified approach to development analysis and 







Information from Non-Self-Governing Terri- 
tories transmitted under Article 73 e of the 
Charter of the United Nations: 

(a) Report of the Secretary-General; 

(b) Report of the Special Committee on the 
Situation with regard to the Implementa- 
tion of the Declaration on the Granting of 
Independence to Colonial Countries and 

Question of Namibia: 

(a) Report of the Special Committee on the 
Situation with regard to the Implementa- 
tion of the Declaration on the Granting 
of Independence to Colonial Countries and 

Report of the United Nations Council for 

Report of the Secretary-General; 
United Nations Fund for Namibia: reports 
of the United Nations Council for Namibia 
and of the Secretary-General; 
Appointment of the United Nations Com- 
missioner for Namibia. 
Question of Territories under Portuguese domi- 

(a) Report of the Special Committee on the 
Situation with regard to the Implementa- 
tion of the Declaration on the Granting 
of Independence to Colonial Countries and 

(b) Report of the Commission of Inquiry on 
the Reported Massacres in Mozambique; 

(c) Report of the Secretary-General. 
Question of Southern Rhodesia: report of the 
Special Committee on the Situation with re- 
gard to the Implementation of the Declaration 
on the Granting of Independence to Colonial 
Countries and Peoples. 

Activities of foreign economic and other in- 
terests which are impeding the implementation 
of the Declaration on the Granting of Inde- 
pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in 
Southern Rhodesia, Namibia and Territories 
under Portuguese domination and in all other 
Territories under colonial domination and 
efforts to eliminate colonialism, apartheid and 
racial discrimination in southern Africa: report 
of the Special Committee on the Situation with 
regard to the Implementation of the Declara- 
tion on the Granting of Independence to 
Colonial Countries and Peoples. 
Implementation of the Declaration on the 
Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun- 
tries and Peoples by the specialized agencies 
and the international institutions associated 
with the United Nations: 

(a) Report of the Special Committee on the 
Situation with regard to the Implementa- 
tion of the Declaration on the Granting of 


October 21, 1974 


Independence to Colonial Countries and 
(b) Reports of the Secretary-General. 

70. United Nations Educational and Training Pro- 
gramme for Southern Africa: report of the 

71. Offers by Member States of study and training 
facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing 
Territories: report of the Secretary-General. 

72. Financial reports and accounts for the year 
1973 and reports of the Board of Auditors: 

(a) United Nations; 

(b) United Nations Development Programme; 

(c) United Nations Children's Fund; 

(d) United Nations Relief and Works Agency 
for Palestine Refugees in the Near East; 

(e) United Nations Institute for Training and 

(f) Voluntary funds administered by the 
United Nations High Commissioner for 
Refugees ; 

(g) Fund of the United Nations Environment 

73. Programme budget for the biennium 1974-1975. 

74. Review of the intergovernmental and expert 
machinery dealing with the formulation, review 
and approval of programmes and budgets. 

75. Administrative and budgetary co-ordination of 
the United Nations with the specialized agen- 
cies and the International Atomic Energy 
Agency: report of the Advisory Committee on 
Administrative and Budgetary Questions. 

76. Joint Inspection Unit: 

(a) Reports of the Joint Inspection Unit; 

(b) Report of the Secretary-General. 

77. Pattern of conferences: 

(a) Report of the Joint Inspection Unit; 

(b) Report of the Secretary-General. 

78. Publications and documentation of the United 
Nations: report of the Secretary-General. 

79. Scale of assessments for the apportionment of 
the expenses of the United Nations: report of 
the Committee on Contributions. 

80. Appointments to fill vacancies in the member- 
ship of subsidiary organs of the General 

(a) Advisory Committee on Administrative 
and Budgetary Questions; 

(b) Committee on Contributions; 

(c) Board of Auditors; 

(d) Investments Committee: confirmation of 
the appointments made by the Secretary- 

(e) United Nations Administrative Tribunal. 

81. Personnel questions: 

(a) Composition of the Secretariat: report of 
the Secretary-General; 

(b) Other personnel questions: reports of the 

82. United Nations salary system: 

(a) Report of the Secretary-General; 

(b) Report of the International Civil Service 
Advisory Board. 

83. Report of the United Nations Joint Staff 
Pension Board. 

84. Financing of the United Nations Emergency 
Force and of the United Nations Disengage- 
ment Observer Force: report of the Secretary- 

85. United Nations International School: report of 
the Secretary-General. 

86. Report of the Special Committee on the Ques- 
tion of Defining Aggression. 

87. Report of the International Law Commission 
on the work of its twenty-sixth session. 

88. Participation in the United Nations Conference 
on the Representation of States in Their Re- 
lations with International Organizations, to be 
held in 1975. 

89. Report of the United Nations Commission on 
International Trade Law on the work of its 
seventh session. 

90. United Nations Conference on Prescription 
(Limitation) in the International Sale of 
Goods: report of the Secretary-General. 

91. Measures to prevent international terrorism 
which endangers or takes innocent human lives 
or jeopardizes fundamental freedoms, and 
study of the underlying causes of those forms 
of terrorism and acts of violence which lie 
in misery, frustration, grievance and despair 
and which cause some people to sacrifice human 
lives, including their own, in an attempt to 
effect radical changes: report of the Ad Hoc 
Committee on International Terrorism. 

92. Respect for human rights in armed conflicts: 
report of the Secretary-General. 

93. Review of the role of the International Court 
of Justice. 

94. Report of the Committee on Relations with the 
Host Country. 

95. Need to consider suggestions regarding the 
review of the Charter of the United Nations: 
report of the Secretary-General. 

96. Declaration on Universal Participation in the 
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 

97. Question of issuing special invitations to States 
which are not Members of the United Nations 
or members of any of the specialized agencies 
or of the International Atomic Energy Agency 
or parties to the Statute of the International 
Court of Justice to become parties to the 
Convention on Special Missions. 

98. Programme of Action on the Establishment of 
a New International Economic Order. 

99. Question of the establishment, in accordance 
with the Convention on the Reduction of State- 
lessness, of a body to which persons claiming 
the benefit of the Convention may apply. 

100. Implementation of General Assembly resolu- 
tion 2286 (XXII) concerning the signature and 
ratification of Additional Protocol I of the 


Department of State Bulletin 

Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 
in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco). 

101. Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone 
in the region of the Middle East. 

102. Status of the European Economic Community 
in the General Assembly. 

103. Prohibition of action to influence the environ- 
ment and climate for military and other 
purposes incompatible with the maintenance 
of international security, human well-being and 

104. Question of Korea: 

(a) Withdrawal of all the foreign troops sta- 
tioned in South Korea under the flag of 
the United Nations; 

(b) Urgent need to implement fully the con- 
sensus of the twenty-eighth session of 
the General Assembly on the Korean 
question and to maintain peace and 
security on the Korean peninsula. 

105. Diplomatic asylum. 

106. Translation of some official documents of the 
General Assembly and of resolutions of the 
Security Council and the Economic and Social 
Council into the German language. 

107. Declaration and establishment of a nuclear- 
free zone in South Asia. 

108. Question of Palestine. 

109. The situation in the Middle East. # 

110. Question of Cyprus. 


United States and Japan Sign 
New Textile Agreement 

The Department of State announced on 
October 2 (press release 389) that in refer- 
ence to article 4 of the Arrangement Regard- 
ing International Trade in Textiles, the 
United States and Japan had entered into a 
new bilateral agreement covering trade in 
cotton, man-made fiber, and wool textiles by 
exchange of notes in Washington on Septem- 
ber 27. (For texts of the exchange of notes 
and related letters, see press release 389). 
The new agreement supersedes two previous 

Under the terms of the new agreement, 
which runs from October 1, 1974, through 

October 21, 1974 

December 31, 1977, Japan will limit its ex- 
ports of all textiles to the United States in 
the first agreement year to 1,691,272,000 
square yards equivalent. The new agreement 
also provides inter alia for a higher rate of 
annual growth and increased inter- and in- 
tra-fiber flexibility, pursuant to the provi- 
sions of the Arrangement Regarding Interna- 
tional Trade in Textiles. 

Current Actions 


Biological Weapons 

Convention on the prohibition of the development, 
production and stockpiling of bacteriological (bio- 
logical) and toxin weapons and on their destruc- 
tion. Done at Washington, London, and Moscow 
April 10, 1972. 1 
Ratification deposited: Pakistan, October 3, 1974. 

Satellite Communications System 

Agreement relating to the International Telecom- 
munications Satellite Organization (Intelsat), 
with annexes. Done at Washington August 20, 
1971. Entered into force February 12, 1973. 
TIAS 7532. 
Ratification deposited: Haiti, October 3, 1974. 


Protocol modifying and extending the wheat trade 
convention (part of the international wheat agree- 
ment) 1971 (TIAS 7144). Done at Washington 
April 2, 1974. Entered into force June 19, 1974, 
with respect to certain provisions; July 1, 1974, 
with respect to other provisions. 
Ratification deposited: United Kingdom, Septem- 
ber 30, 1974. 2 



Consular convention, with agreed memorandum and 
related notes. Signed at Prague July 9, 1973. 1 
Senate advice and consent to ratification: Septem- 
ber 30, 1974. 

1 Not in force. 

2 Including Dominica, Saint Christopher-Nevis- 
Anguilla, Saint Vincent, The Bailiwick of Guernsey, 
The Isle of Man, Belize, Bermuda, The British 
Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, The Gilbert and Ellice 
Islands Colony, Hong Kong, Montserrat, Saint 
Helena and Dependencies, and Seychelles. 







Nonscheduled air service agreement, with annexes. 
Signed at Amman September 21, 1974. Entered 
into force September 21, 1974. 

Khmer Republic 

Agreement amending the agreement for sales of 
agricultural commodities of August 10, 1974. 
Effected by exchange of notes at Phnom Penh 
September 17, 1974. Entered into force September 
17, 1974. 


GPO Sales Publications 

Publications may be ordered by catalog or stock 
number from the Superintendent of Documents, 
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 
20402. A 25-percent discount is made on orders for 
100 or more copies of any one publication mailed to 
the same address. Remittances, payable to the Super- 
intendent of Documents, must accompany orders. 
Prices shown below, which include domestic postage, 
are subject to change. 

Background Notes: Short, factual summaries which 
describe the people, history, government, economy, 
and foreign relations of each country. Each contains 
a map, a list of principal government officials and 
U.S. diplomatic and consular officers, and a reading 
list. (A complete set of all Background Notes cur- 
rently in stock— at least 140— $16.35; 1-year sub- 
scription service for approximately 77 updated or 
new Notes— $14.50; plastic binder— $1.50.) Single 
copies of those listed below are available at 25? each. 

Austria . . . 
Indonesia . . 
Iran . . . . 
Israel . . . . 

Cat. No. S1.123:AU7 
Pub. 7955 8 pp. 

Cat. No. S1.123:C99 
Pub. 7758 8 pp. 

Cat. No. S1.123:IN2 
Pub. 7786 8 pp. 

Cat. No. S1.123:IR1 
Pub. 7760 5 pp. 

Cat. No. S1.123:IS7 
Pub. 7752 8 pp. 

Sample Questions From the Written Examination 
for Foreign Service Officers. This booklet describes 
the written examination and presents samples of the 
kinds of questions that are asked in the written ex- 
amination for selection of Foreign Service officers. 
Available free of charge from the Board of Exam- 
iners for the Foreign Service, Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 

Space Laboratory— Cooperative Program. Agree- 
ments with certain governments, members of the 
European Space Research Organization. TIAS 7722. 
45 pp. 55?. (Cat. No. S9.10:7722). 

Use of Veterans Memorial Hospital — Grants-in-Aid 
for Medical Care and Treatment of Veterans and 
Rehabilitation of the Hospital Plant. Agreement with 
the Philippines. TIAS 7814. 9 pp. 25?. (Cat. No. 

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961— Addi- 
tion of Difenoxin to Schedule I and Amendment of 
Schedule III. TIAS 7817. 2 pp. 25?. (Cat. No. S9. 

Reciprocal Fishing Privileges. Agreements with Can- 
ada extending the agreement of June 15, 1973. TIAS 
7818. 5 pp. 25?. (Cat. No. S9.10:7818). 

Economic, Technical and Related Assistance. Agree- 
ment with the Yemen Arab Republic. TIAS 7820. 
5 pp. 25?. (Cat. No. S9.10:7820). 

Trade in Textiles. Agreement with the Republic of 
China. TIAS 7821. 3 pp. 25?. (Cat. No. S9.10:7821). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with the Phil- 
ippines. TIAS 7822. 9 pp. 25?. (Cat, No. S9.10:7822). 

Whaling — International Observer Scheme. Agree- 
ment with Japan. TIAS 7823. 16 pp. 30?. (Cat. No. 

Air Transport Services. Agreement with Canada 
amending the agreement of January 17, 1966. TIAS 
7824. 15 pp. 30?. (Cat. No. S9.1,0:7824). 

Aviation — Preclearance. Agreement with Canada. 
TIAS 7825. 24 pp. 35?. (Cat. No. S9.10:7825). 

Nonscheduled Air Services. Agreement with Canada. 
TIAS 7826. 57 pp. 60?. (Cat. No. S9.10:7826). 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Sudan. 
TIAS 7827. 6 pp. 25?. (Cat. No. S9.10:7827). 

Air Charter Services. Agreement with the United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 
amending the agreement of March 30, 1973. TIAS 
7832. 5 pp. 25?. (Cat. No. S9.10:7832). 


Department of State Bulletin 

INDEX October 21, 197U Vol. LXXI, No. 18J>3 

Atomic Energy 

The Dilemma of Controlling the Spread of 
Nuclear Weapons While Promoting Peace- 
ful Technology (Ikle) 543 

General Conference of the International Atom- 
ic Energy Agency Holds 18th Session at Vi- 
enna (Ray) 552 


Department Urges Prompt Action on North 

Atlantic Air Fares (Department statement) 550 

U.S. and U.K. Agree To Reduce Excess Airline 
Capacity (Department announcement, joint 
U.S.-U.K. press statement) 551 

Bangladesh. U.S. Welcomes Bangladesh, Gre- 
nada, and Guinea-Bissau to the U.N. (Ben- 
nett) 558 

Congress. 1973 Report on U.S. Participation in 
the U.N. Transmitted to Congress (message 
from President Ford) 547 

Economic Affairs. President Ford Establishes 
Economic Policy Board (White House an- 
nouncement, Executive order) 549 

Energy. Assistant Secretary Enders Outlines 
Draft Agreement Reached by Energy Coor- 
dinating Group (transcript of news confer- 
ence) 525 

Foreign Aid. U.S. Calls for Worldwide Com- 
mitment To Assist Poorer Nations (Scali) . 557 

France. Dinner at the National Gallery Hon- 
ors French Foreign Minister (Kissinger, 
Sauvagnargues) 541 

Grenada. U.S. Welcomes Bangladesh, Grenada, 
and Guinea-Bissau to the U.N. (Bennett) . 558 


United States Extends Recognition to Repub- 
lic of Guinea-Bissau (letter from President 
Ford to President of Guinea-Bissau) . . . 533 

U.S. Welcomes Bangladesh, Grenada, and 
Guinea-Bissau to the U.N. (Bennett) . . . 558 

International Organizations and Conferences. 
General Conference of the International 
Atomic Energy Agency Holds 18th Session 
at Vienna (Ray) 552 

Italy. President Leone of Italy Makes State 
Visit to the United States (Ford, Leone, Kis- 
singer, text of joint U.S.-Italian statement) 534 

Japan. United States and Japan Sign New 
Textile Agreement 563 

Presidential Documents 

1973 Report on U.S. Participation in the U.N. 
Transmitted to Congress 547 

President Ford Establishes Economic Policy 
Board (Executive order) 549 

President Leone of Italy Makes State Visit to 
the United States 534 

United States Extends Recognition to Repub- 
lic of Guinea-Bissau 533 

Publications. GPO Sales Publications .... 564 

Treaty Information 

Current Actions 563 

United States and Japan Sign New Textile 
Agreement 563 

United Kingdom. U.S. and U.K. Agree To Re- 
duce Excess Airline Capacity (Department 
announcement, joint U.S.-U.K. press state- 
ment) 551 

United Nations 

Agenda of the 29th Regular Session of the 

U.N. General Assembly 559 

1973 Report on U.S. Participation in the U.N. 
Transmitted to Congress (message from 
President Ford) 547 

U.S. Calls for Worldwide Commitment To As- 
sist Poorer Nations (Scali) 557 

U.S. Welcomes Bangladesh, Grenada, and 

Guinea-Bissau to the U.N. (Bennett) . . . 558 

Name Index 

Bennett, W. Tapley, Jr 558 

Enders, Thomas O 525 

Ford, President 533,534,547,549 

Ikle, Fred C 543 

Kissinger, Secretary 534, 541 

Leone, Giovanni 534 

Ray, Dixy Lee 552 

Sauvagnargues, Jean 541 

Scali, John 557 

Check List of Department of State 

Press Releases: September 30-October 6 

Press releases may be obtained from the 
Office of Press Relations, Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 

Releases issued prior to September 30 which 
appear in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 
369 of September 20, 377 of September 24, and 
378 of September 26. 


Kissinger, Sauvagnargues: ex- 
change of toasts, Sept. 27. 

Ocean Affairs Advisory Commit- 
tee, Miami, Fla., Oct. 24. 

Overseas Schools Advisory Coun- 
cil, Oct. 22. 

Government Advisory Committee 
on International Book and 
Library Programs, Oct. 24. 

Study Group 5 of U.S. National 
Committee for CCITT, Oct. 30. 

Kissinger, Naff a'; exchange of 
toasts, New York, Sept. 30. 

U.S. and Japan sign textile agree- 
ment (rewrite). 

Kissinger, Molina: exchange of 
toasts, New York, Oct. 2. 

Program for the official visit of 
the First Secretary of the Cen- 
tral Committee of the Polish 
United Workers' Party, Edward 
Gierek, Oct. 6-13. 

Secretary's Advisory Committee 
on Private International Law 
Study Group on Hotelkeepers' 
Liability, New York, Nov. 8. 

Secretary's Advisory Committee 
on Private International Law 
Study Group on Matrimonial 
Matters, New York, Nov. 7. 

Advisory Committee on "Foreign 
Relations of the United States," 
Nov. 8. 





















*392 10/4 

*393 10/4 

*394 10/4 

* Not printed. 

f Held for a later issue of the Bulletin. 



Superintendent of Documents 

u.s. government printing office 

washington, dc. 20402 



Special Fourth-Clan Rale 


R 1 


1L blBOl 

Subscription Renewals: To insure uninterrupted 
service, please renew your subscription promptly 
when you receive the expiration notice from the 
Superintendent of Documents. Due to the time re- 
quired to process renewals, notices are sent out 3 
months in advance of the expiration date. Any prob- 
lems involving your subscription will receive im- 
mediate attention if you write to: Director, Office 
of Media Services (PA/MS), Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 




Volume LXXI 

No. 1844 

October 28, 1974 




Welcoming Remarks by President Ford 

and Statement by Secretary of the Treasury Simon 571+ 


Statement by Senator Charles H. Percy 

U.S. Representative to the U.N. General Assembly 589 


For index see inside back cover 


DLC" G 1974 




Vol. LXXI, No. 1844 
October 28, 1974 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


52 issues plus semiannual indexes, 

domestic $29.80, foreign $37.25 

Single copy 60 cents 

Use of funds for printing this publication 

approved by the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (January 29, 1971). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 

copyrighted and items contained herein may be 

reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 

appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 

the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 

The Department of State BULLETIN 
a weekly publication issued by tht 
Office of Media Services, Bureau oi 
Public Affairs, provides the public ant 
interested agencies of the government 
with information on developments ii 
the field of U.S. foreign relations ant 
on the work of the Department ant 
the Foreign Service. 
The BULLETIN includes selectet 
press releases on foreign policy, issuet 
by the White House and the Depart 
ment, and statements, addresses 
and news conferences of the President 
and the Secretary of State and othe\ 
officers of the Department, as well at 
special articles on various phases o\ 
international affairs and the function 
of the Department. Information ii 
included concerning treaties and inter 
national agreements to which tht 
United States is or may become < 
party and on treaties of general inter 
national interest. 

Publications of the Department o 
State, United Nations documents, ant 
legislative material in the field o 
international relations are also listen 

Secretary Kissinger's News Conference of October 7 


Press release 395 of October 7 

Secretary Kissinger: Before we go to ques- 
tions, I would like to welcome 20 Polish 
journalists who are here to cover the visit 
of Mr. Gierek [Edward Gierek, First Secre- 
tary of the Polish United Workers' Party]. 
I would like to say that we attach great 
importance to this visit in further improving 
our relationship with Poland. And I am sure 
what you will see here will remind you of 
some of the deliberations in the Polish Diet 
of previous centuries. 

Q. A two-part question, Mr. Secretary, on 
your trip. Will you be emphasizing an Israeli- 
Egyptian settlement, an Israeli- J or dan set- 
tlement, or both? And do you plan, or are 
there any possibilities to meet with [Yasir] 
Arafat or any other Palestinian leader while 
you are in the Middle East? 

Secretary Kissinger: With respect to the 
second question, there is no possibility that 
I will see Arafat or any other Palestinian 
leader while I am in the Middle East. 

As for the content of the negotiations, we 
have attempted, in discussion with both 
Israeli and Arab leaders, to determine what 
would be the most suitable next stage of 
the negotiations. 

It has always been understood that prog- 
ress in one area would have to be linked with 
progress in other areas. And therefore we 
are talking about timing and the particular 
stages that look most promising. 

So I am not going with any fixed ideas, 
and I will discuss again with all of the 
leaders involved. And then one can form a 
common judgment. 

I would like to point out that there will be 
no concrete results in terms of agreements 

or dramatic announcements that can be ex- 
pected out of this trip. The primary purpose 
is to give concreteness to the negotiating 
process and perhaps to agree on some timing. 
As long as we are talking about the trip, I 
would like to add that I will also visit Saudi 
Arabia in connection with the negotiations 
and on the way home I will stop in Algeria 
and Morocco. And I will be back on the 
15th. 1 

Peaceful and Military Nuclear Explosions 

Q. Mr. Secretary, there have been pub- 
lished reports this morning, sir, that the 
agreement reached last summer, I believe, by 
President Nixon with the Soviets to limit 
underground testing may be broadened to 
include peaceful nuclear tests. Are these 
stories accurate? 

Secretary Kissinger: I am reaching the 
point now where before I read my cables I 
read the newspapers, because they have a 
better selection. [Laughter.] 

This one is not correct in all respects. 
There was an agreement at the time of the 
negotiation of the threshold test ban that the 
threshold test ban would not be ratified un- 
less there was also an agreement for the 
handling of peaceful nuclear explosions. 

This had two aspects: peaceful nuclear 
explosions below the threshold and peaceful 
nuclear explosions above the threshold. "Be- 
low the threshold" presented no particular 
problem because explosions were permitted 
anyway, and it was primarily an issue of the 
site at which the explosion would take place. 

1 The Department had previously announced that 
Secretary Kissinger would visit Egypt, Syria, Jor- 
dan, and Israel Oct. 9-14. 

October 28, 1974 


"Above the threshold" required special nego- 
tiations for the development of criteria to 
distinguish a peaceful explosion from a mili- 
tary explosion and also to determine the 
compatibility of the explosion with a limited 
test ban. 

These negotiations are now starting in 
Moscow, and the outcome will depend on 
how we can proceed with the ratification 
issue. But this has always been understood, 
so there is no new decision involved. What 
is involved is a clearer specification of the 
criteria by which these distinctions might be 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, if I may follow that up. 
When India exploded a peaceful nuclear de- 
vice last May, I think the U.S. position was 
that there was no distinction between a 
peaceful device and a military one. The 
technology is the same. Is there now a dis- 
tinction being drawn in this country? 

Secretary Kissinger: I think one has to 
make a distinction between countries that 
have not previously had access to nuclear 
explosive technology and those countries that 
have elaborated nuclear explosive technology. 

In the case of a new nuclear country, the 
mere fact of an explosion is of significance 
because that is what enters it into the club 
of those who have set off nuclear explosions. 
And therefore in the early stages of nuclear 
development, the distinction between mili- 
tary uses and civilian uses may be in the 
mind of those that set off the explosion, but 
it is very difficult — in fact it is impossible — 
to establish a distinction. 

In the case of elaborated nuclear tech- 
nology, there are at least some cases in which 
criteria can be defined by which the explo- 
sion is either of a more rudimentary tech- 
nology than has already been tested for 
military purposes or is of a nature that can 
be clearly demonstrated as not useful for 
military purposes. 

So the distinction can be made only in 
cases of advanced nuclear countries. It can- 
not be made with respect to countries enter- 
ing the nuclear club. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, what is your rationale 
for continuing as chairman on the 1+0 Com- 

mittee on covert activities and clandestine 
operations overseas? And isn't this compro- 
mising to your role as Secretary of State and 
the relatively open diplomacy of your other 

Secretary Kissinger: The 40 Committee, 
in one form or another, has existed since 
1948. The Department of State has always 
been represented on the 40 Committee. 

The role of the 40 Committee is to review 
covert operations in order to determine their 
compatibility with the national security and 
foreign policy objectives of the United 
States. It is not to operate the covert actions 
and not, for that matter, to design them. It 
is to give policy guidance and policy review. 

So, in one form or another, the Depart- 
ment of State is a participant in the decision, 
and the final approval is in every case given 
by the President in any event. 

Measures To Deal With Oil Prices 

Q. Mr. Secretary, you have repeatedly said 
that you do not desire confrontation with 
the oil producers. I would like to ask two 
questions about that. If you do not want 
confrontation, why did you and the President 
use such harsh rhetoric in addressing your- 
self to the problem, rhetoric that apparently 
you can't back up with action? And, two, 
why a full year after the energy crisis really 
hit have you not made any serious moves to 
get together with the producers? 

Secretary Kissinger: Do you want me to 
agree with your conclusions, or can I state 
some of my own? [Laughter.] 

First of all, the definition of "harsh rhet- 
oric" is of course quite a subjective one. The 
President and I stated that we are dealing 
with a very serious problem. If you look at 
my statements on the subject, you will find 
that I used substantially the same rhetoric 
in my Pilgrims speech last December in 
London, in the opening speech to the Wash- 
ington Energy Conference in February, in 
the speech to the U.N. special session of the 
General Assembly in April, and now again 
in September. 

We have stated, and I repeat, that present 
oil prices are putting a strain on the world 


Department of State Bulletin 

economy that will, over a period of time, 
create an intolerable situation. It was the 
intention to emphasize these points. 

Now, whether or not it can be backed up, 
again, is a question that requires some ex- 
amination. Ever since the first speech last 
December we have made a systematic effort 
to bring about greater cohesion among the 
consumers, to protect them against emer- 
gencies, to bring about conservation, to bring 
about cooperation on alternative sources of 
energy and in research and development, and 
ultimately a greater degree of financial soli- 
darity, at least with respect to the recycling 

These measures are required whether or 
not oil prices come down, especially if oil 
prices do not come down. They also will 
provide a basis for further discussion with 
the producers. 

Until there is a degree of a common view 
among the consumers, discussions with the 
producers are simply going to repeat all the 
debates with which we are familiar. We 
have been talking with the producers. The 
Europeans have been talking with the pro- 
ducers. The only new element could be a 
greater degree of cohesion among the con- 
sumers, and that, at this point, we are in 
the process of forming. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, could I follow that up? 

Secretary Kissinger: Yes. 

Q. There have been statements by Arab 
spokesmen in the past couple of weeks draw- 
ing a clear link between the oil crisis and 
future Middle East negotiations. In your 
statement just a moment ago, when you 
talked about your upcoming trip to the Mid- 
dle East, you didn't talk about the oil crisis, 
but just the negotiation. Is there any real- 
istic way of separating the two? 

Secretary Kissinger: The major dynamics 
of the oil crisis — well, first of all, I wouldn't 
like the word "oil crisis" — of the impact of 
the high oil prices is not inevitably linked 
to the Arab-Israeli negotiations. And we are 
negotiating these two issues separately be- 
cause the high oil prices affect many nations 
on a global basis that do not have the re- 

motest connection with the Arab-Israeli 

We believe that to some extent these nego- 
tiations should be conducted in separate 
forums, and we are conducting them in 
separate forums. 

Improvement of U.S.-Polish Relations 

Q. If I may ask you, on Mr. Gierek's visit, 
in the spirit of the Polish Diet, would you 
care to elaborate on this visit in a more 
general, wider context of the East-West 
detente, if you may? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, as you know, 
the improvement of relations between the 
East and West has been one of the cardinal 
goals of our foreign policy. 

We have always held the view that this 
is not confined to relations between the 
United States and the Soviet Union but it 
must include some of our traditional friends 
in Eastern Europe. And therefore we expect 
during the visit of the First Secretary to 
discuss and to agree on a number of co- 
operative projects in a variety of fields, eco- 
nomic and technological. 

We realize of course the facts of geography 
and the realities of existing political rela- 
tionships. But we believe that a considerable 
improvement in relations between Poland and 
the United States is possible and that this 
will contribute to the general easing of ten- 
sions and improvement of relations on an 
East-West basis. 

Grain Sales; Emigration From Soviet Union 

Q. Mr. Secretary, on Soviet- American re- 
lations, over the weekend the Soviets have 
lost a major grain purchase. Can you say 
how this in your mind affects Soviet-Amer- 
ican relations; and ivas the U.S. Government 
properly informed about the Soviet inten- 
tions? And, two, can you bring us up to date 
on the status of your discussions with the 
Senators on the Jackson amendment, which 
now seem to have run into some trouble? 

Secretary Kissinger: With respect to the 
grain purchase, this grew out of an attempt 

October 28, 1974 


by the United States to contact major im- 
porters of grain and to discuss with them 
a general level which we thought was con- 
sistent with maintaining American grain 
prices and also with our ability to fulfill it. 

In the process, I believe that a strong pos- 
sibility exists that we may have misled the 
Soviet Union as to what we thought we could 
deliver over a period of time. And when a 
trading monopoly is given a certain level, it 
then may assume that it has the right to 
place orders for the whole amount imme- 
diately. This is where a disproportionate 
impact occurred. And therefore we ascribed 
the events of last weekend to a misunder- 
standing between bureaucracies. 

Secretary [of the Treasury William E.] 
Simon will be in the Soviet Union at the 
end of the week and will discuss with respon- 
sible Soviet officials the grain exports which 
we believe we are able to make which are 
consistent with our attempt to fight inflation 
and with our other obligations on a global 
basis. So we are confident that this can be 
worked out on a constructive and coopera- 
tive basis. 

With respect to the second question, the 
negotiations between the Senators and my- 
self, the difficulty, such as it is, arises from 
the fact that there are some assurances that 
have been given to me that I can defend and 
which I can transmit. There are some inter- 
pretations of these assurances which some 
of the Senators would like to make. And that 
is their privilege. And we understand that 
they would apply their interpretations as a 
test of Soviet good faith. 

What I cannot do is to guarantee things 
that have not been told to me. And so the 
question is whether we can work out some- 
thing which makes clear that we take the 
Senators' views very seriously but which 
does not put us into a position of having to 
guarantee something beyond what has been 

Now, the difficulty arose at a meeting with 
the congressional leadership in which we pre- 
sented what had been discussed and pointed 
out what we could guarantee in the area in 
which we were not sure of what in fact would 
happen. And the unanimous opinion of the 
congressional leadership was that if we could 

not be sure about certain aspects, then some 
of the formulations that had been used 
might lend themselves to misinterpretation 
later on. 

We have every intention on our side of 
working this out with good will. We have no 
intention of having any debate with the 
Senators concerned. We share their objec- 
tives. And we believe that a reasonable solu- 
tion can be found among honorable men. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, was the figure of 60,000 
or any other figure understood in your dis- 
cussions with the Soviet Union? 

Secretary Kissinger: I have always made 
clear that I could not guarantee any figure. 
How you interpret certain administrative 
agreements into figures, I have always made 
clear, could not be guaranteed by us. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, would you recommend 
Presidential intervention in the event that 
any of the oil-rich countries tried to make a 
wheat deal or a grain deal similar to the one 
that ivas blocked over this past weekend? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, there has been 
a meeting in the Department of Agriculture 
this morning in order to work out a program 
of voluntary restraints and voluntary co- 
operation between agricultural exporters and 
the Department of Agriculture. That pro- 
gram will be announced this afternoon. And 
I believe that it represents a satisfactory 
compromise between the operation of a free 
economy and the overall global responsibili- 
ties of the United States. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in reference to your 
earlier comments about the negotiations on 
the underground nuclear test ban, would you 
agree that the agreement has to be renego- 
tiated fundamentally in order to get through 
the Senate, namely, that peaceful nuclear ex- 
plosions also have to be limited to 150 kilo- 
tons? And secondly, also because it relates 
to U.S. negotiations with the Soviet Union, 
would you agree that the dispute concerning 
negotiations over emigration with members 
of the Senate represents a diminution of 
their willingness to agree with you on many 
of these issues which are in controversy re- 


Department of State Bulletin 

Secretary Kissinger: "They" meaning the 
Senators ? 

Q. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Kissinger: Or the Soviets? 

Q. No, speaking of the mood — / was par- 
ticularly referring to the mood in Congress 
as reflected recently. I am trying to get — 

Secretary Kissinger: To confirm your ar- 
ticle. [Laughter.] 

Q. No — you are entitled to a rebuttal if 
you ivish. What I am trying to ascertain 
is — we have discussed here two new issues: 
one, the emigration concept — 

Secretary Kissinger: I understand the 
question. I think I get the drift of its import. 
But first let me deal with the first part of 
the question. 

I do not agree, nor is it the opinion of the 
President or of the government, that the 
threshold test ban has to be renegotiated. 
We agreed with the Soviet Union in June 
that we would make a good-faith effort to 
develop criteria for nuclear explosions, for 
peaceful nuclear explosions, recognizing the 
difficulty of defining criteria for explosions 
above 150 kilotons. We will nevertheless en- 
gage in these negotiations in good faith. And 
the judgment of whether it is possible to 
develop these criteria can be made only after 
the negotiations have been completed. It has 
not been affected by any consultations in the 
Senate. It will be determined entirely on 
the basis of the negotiations that are now 
opening in Moscow. 

With respect to the second question, we 
are here in an area of ambiguity, in which 
I have to say, in fairness to the Senators 
concerned, they have always held the view 
that there should be a fixed number. This is 
not something new caused by recent discus- 
sions, but it is something that they have 
always held. And I have always held the 
view that I could not guarantee something 
that has not been told to me. The question 
now is whether we can formulate a criterion 
that can be applied as a test without putting 
the administration into the position of hav- 
ing misled them. This has nothing to do 

with any recent debate that has gone on in 
the Congress. 

But since you obviously also want an an- 
swer to the implication of your question, I 
believe it was inevitable that during the 
Watergate period, when much of the public 
attention and congressional attention was 
on domestic affairs, that there was a great 
reluctance to have a challenge to foreign 
policy. As we now have a more normal gov- 
ernmental process, it is also inevitable that 
there will be a more normal debate on the 
subject of foreign policy. And I consider 
that inevitable and, in the long term, de- 

Attitudes Toward Foreign Policy Issues 

Q. Mr. Secretary, is the Nixon doctrine 
still an ongoing policy of the new adminis- 
tration, and if so, do you have the support 
of the Congress in seeing that it is imple- 

Secretary Kissinger: First of all, the 
Nixon doctrine, defined as strengthening the 
capability of countries to defend themselves, 
is still the policy of the administration. It 
is also true, as a result of the war in Viet- 
Nam and of a generation of involvement in 
international affairs, that the general atti- 
tude of much of the American public toward 
foreign aid in general has become much more 
skeptical. And therefore the administration 
has greater difficulties than used to be the 
case a decade or two ago in its general ability 
to convince Congress to appropriate these 
sums, especially at a period when we have 
severe domestic economic strains. 

We believe that it is our obligation to put 
before the Congress what we believe is in 
the national interest, just as it is the Con- 
gress' right to make its own judgment. 

Q. Sir, to clarify your earlier remarks 
about the UO Committee, has the recent con- 
troversy about Chile caused any change in 
policy with regard to covert political activi- 

Secretary Kissinger: As I pointed out, the 
covert political activities have been carried 
out since 1948 under the general supervision 

October 28, 1974 


of the 40 Committee under various names. 
These operations are also briefed to the 
Congress by whatever procedures are estab- 
lished between the CIA and its oversight 
committees, and these procedures are not de- 
termined either by the 40 Committee or by 
the White House. They are left entirely to 
the arrangements between the CIA and the 
oversight committees. 

Recently there has been an expansion of 
briefing the Foreign Affairs Committee of 
the House as to those activities that have 
foreign policy implications; that is, a small 
subcommittee of this [Foreign Affairs Com- 
mittee] . 

I do not think it would be appropriate for 
me, in the nature of what is a covert opera- 
tion, to go into the scale, but I believe that 
if one compares the scale now, or the scale 
even from the late sixties onward, to the 
previous period, one would find that the polit- 
ical direction has been tightened up and the 
number has decreased. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, before you became Sec- 
retary of State, you maintained that it was 
the job of the National Security Adviser to 
assure that the President got as wide as 
possible a range of foreign policy options 
and thinking within the government. Why 
do you believe now, as you apparently do, 
that your holding of both jobs, Secretary of 
State and the National Security Adviser, is 
not inconsistent with that function? 

Secretary Kissinger: Contrary to what I 
have read in the press, I have not entered 
this debate. I did not request the President 
to make the statement that he made in New 
York, nor did this issue come up between 
the President and me until he had already 
written that statement. The operation of the 
national security machinery depends on the 
President, and it must be organized in such 
a way that he feels comfortable in making 
those decisions. It is not a subject that any 
Cabinet officer can or should negotiate with 
the President. And therefore this is a matter 
that should be more properly addressed in 
another forum than by me. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, do you feel that the 
criticism that has been leveled against you 

in the past month on a whole variety of 
issues is fair, and do you believe that that 
criticism has to any degree affected your 
capacity to run foreign policy? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, I think it is 
fair to say that my own estimate of myself 
may be at variance with that of some of the 
critics. [Laughter.] But then I can't expect 
my critics to be right a hundred percent of 
the time. [Laughter.] 

I think the fact of criticism is certainly 
fair and was certainly inevitable. I think 
that there may have been a period, as I 
pointed out, in which there may have been 
excessive restraint, and this may be counter- 
balanced now by finding the more critical 
aspects. I assume that it will even out over 
a period of time. I don't think it has affected 
my effectiveness. 

Cyprus Negotiations 

Q. Mr. Secretary, sir, you have in the past 
week met ivith the Turkish and the Greek 
Foreign Ministers several times in New 
York. Could you now tell us as to what are 
the prospects for resuming the negotiations 
in Geneva; and, also, what are the prospects 
for peace in Cyprus? 

Secretary Kissinger: The progress in the 
negotiations on Cyprus depends on many 
factors. It depends on the domestic situa- 
tion in both Greece and Turkey. Greece has 
elections scheduled, and Turkey is attempt- 
ing to form a new government and may have 
elections scheduled. It depends on the status 
of the communal talks in Cyprus. 

The attempt in the talks in New York with 
the Greek and Turkish Foreign Ministers 
was to see whether some basis could be found 
by which negotiations could ultimately start 
in a manner that was also compatible with 
the domestic necessities of each of the par- 

I do not have the impression that the re- 
sumption of the Geneva forum is imminent, 
and I don't think it would serve a useful 
purpose by making a prediction about when 
other talks will start. The United States 
strongly supports the communal talks which 


Department of State Bulletin 

are now going on and will in every other way 
do its utmost to enable the parties to reach 
a conclusion that is consistent with their 
dignity and self-respect. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, you have been reported 
widely as expressing concern that the eco- 
nomic crisis or the oil crisis might cause 
political upheaval toward Western Europe. 
Do you find that the Western allies with 
whom you met last week agree with your 
analysis, and do you think that you have now 
made progress toward some consensus on 
dealing with the oil crisis? 

Secretary Kissinger: I have been reported 
correctly as believing — indeed, I stated so 
publicly — that the continuation of these 
enormous balance of payments deficits will 
force governments, and especially those of 
Western Europe, into decisions that will, 
over a period of time, have significant do- 
mestic or international consequences. 

I believe that this general analysis is 
shared, to a greater or lesser extent, by most 
of the countries with which we have talked. 
Therefore I am basically optimistic that we 
are making progress in the objectives we 
have set ourselves — which is to enable the 
consuming nations to withstand the impact 
of the economic situation in which they find 

Q. Mr. Secretary, coidd I follow that up? 
Would it be useful then for the major con- 
suming nations to cooperatively reduce their 
consumption of oil by a specific amount, re- 
gardless of what that amount is? 

Secretary Kissinger: As I pointed out in 
the opening of the Washington Energy Con- 
ference in February, a restraint on demand 
is essential if progress is to be made in the 
solution of the oil problem. 

Now, whether this restraint is achieved 
by international agreement or whether in- 
ternational discussions provide the impetus 
for essentially national decisions is not a 
major point. But a restraint on demand, in 
one form or another, is an essential compo- 
nent of the policy that we have sketched. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, on the $50,000 gift to 
you from Nelson Rockefeller, is there any 

reason why you did not disclose that when 
you were confirmed as Secretary of State? 

Secretary Kissinger: When Governor 
Rockefeller made this proposal to me, I asked 
the counsel to the President-elect to give me 
a legal opinion in terms of existing statutes 
and in terms of propriety. He gave me a 
written letter, a written statement, in which 
he pointed out that it was neither contrary 
to any law or statute nor involved any im- 
propriety. And only after I had that written 
statement did I proceed, and then I put the 
money in trust for my children and did not 

Q. Who was that counsel, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary Kissinger: I think it was Mr. 
[Edward L. ] Morgan. We will have this 
letter available this afternoon. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, on the Middle East, 
some Israelis have been insisting that the 
next stage shoidd be the final stage. Is that 
now just out of the question? 

Secretary Kissinger: That is not my im- 
pression of what other Israelis have told me, 
and I don't want to speculate what the next 
stage will be ; but it is not the impression that 
I have gained from my talks with all the 

Q. Could you tell us from your assessment 
of the visit to Cuba of Senators [Jacob K.~\ 
Javits and [Claiborne] Pell whether you re- 
gard the reception they got as a kind of 
signal to the U.S. Government; and if so, 
how you might respond to such a signal? 

Secretary Kissinger: We have, I think, a 
rather clear understanding of the attitude 
of the Cuban Government to the problem 
of normalization of relations between the 
United States and Cuba. We are also discuss- 
ing this matter in inter-American forums; 
and there will be a meeting of Foreign Min- 
isters in Quito early in November to discuss 
the problem of OAS sanctions. We will pro- 
ceed, first, in the inter-American forums to 
discuss the views of our colleagues, and then 
we will form a judgment as to how to pro- 
ceed thereafter. 

October 28, 1974 


Q. Mr. Secretary, why didn't the United 
States accept an agreement on the nuclear 
cooperation tvith Israel and Egypt? And, 
seco)id, do you hope to sign this agreement 
during the visit of President Sadat next 
month hi Washington? 

Secretary Kissinger: We haven't reached 
an agreement because some of the parties 
have not responded yet to our suggestions 
for additional safeguards. When the agree- 
ment will be signed — we do not have a fixed 
timetable, and we have not come to an un- 
derstanding with anybody as to a specific 
time to sign the agreement. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, on that question, woidd 
you be prepared to give the nuclear plants 
only to those countries that will agree to the 
additional safeguards, even if some other 
countries did not agree to them? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, we have not 
faced that question yet, and we expect that 
the countries concerned will accept the addi- 
tional safeguards. 

President Ford's News Conference 
of October 9 

Following are excerpts relating to foreign 
policy from the transcript of a news con- 
ference held by President Ford in the Rose 
Garden at the White House on October 9. 1 

I do have one business announcement. I 
am pleased to announce this afternoon that 
President Echeverria of Mexico and I have 
agreed to hold a meeting on the U.S.-Mexican 
border on Monday, October 21. 

I am very much looking forward to this 
opportunity to meet with President Eche- 
verria in the Nogales area, and we plan to 
visit both sides of the border. The United 
States and Mexico have a long tradition 
of friendly and cooperative relations. It 
is my hope that our meeting will contribute 
to maintaining that relationship and to 

1 For the complete text, see Weekly Compilation 
of Presidential Documents dated Oct. 14. 

strengthen the good will between our coun- 
tries over the years to come. At this meet- 
ing, we will discuss, obviously, a wide range 
of subjects of interest to both countries. 

Q. I am sure you have other questions on 
economics, but let me ask just one on inter- 
national affairs. There are reports that you 
are planning some sort of a summit confer- 
ence with Chairman Brezhnev of the Soviet 
Union. Can you give us some details on that? 

President Ford: When I took the oath of 
office, I indicated that I would continue our 
country's efforts to broaden and to expand 
the policies of detente with the Soviet Union. 

Since I have been in office, I have had a 
number of discussions with responsible lead- 
ers in the Soviet Union. About 10 days ago, 
I met with their Foreign Minister, Mr. 

Dr. Kissinger is going to the Soviet Union 
the latter part of this month to continue 
these discussions. 

Now, as you well know, Mr. Brezhnev has 
been invited to come to the United States in 
1975. If there is a reason for us to meet 
before that meeting in the United States, I 
will certainly consider it. 

Q. To follow up a little, do you expect the 
United States to have any kind of a proposal 
on arms to present to the Soviet Union before 
the end of the year? 

President Ford: We are resolving our 
position in this very important and very 
critical area. When Dr. Kissinger goes to 
the Soviet Union the latter part of this 
month, we will have some guidelines, some 
specific guidelines, for him to discuss in a 
preliminary way with the Soviet Union. 

Q. Mr. President, in your recent U.N. 
speech, you added some last-minute remarks 
praising Secretary of State Kissinger, and 
last night you made an extraordinary move 
of going out to Andrews Air Force Base to 
see him off on his trip abroad. Are you upset 
by the criticism that Secretary Kissinger is 
receiving from the press, the public, and 
Congress ? 


Department of State Bulletin 

President Ford: I would put it this way, 
Mr. Jones [Phil Jones, CBS News]. I am 
very fond of Dr. Kissinger on a personal 
basis. I have tremendous respect and admira- 
tion for the superb job that he has done since 
he has been the director of the National Se- 
curity Agency (Council) and also as Secre- 
tary of State. 

I think what he has done for peace in the 
world, what he is continuing to do for peace 
throughout the world, deserves whatever 
good and appropriate things I can say about 
him and whatever little extra effort I can 
make to show my appreciation. And I intend 
to continue to do it. 

Q. Sir, do you feel that his effectiveness is 
being undermined by this criticism? 

President Ford: I haven't seen any adverse 
effects so far. We are making headway, and 
I think constructively, in all of the areas 
where I think and he thinks it is important 
for us to do things to preserve peace and 
build a broader base for peace. 

Letters of Credence 


The newly appointed Ambassador of Bar- 
bados, Cecil B. Williams, presented his cre- 
dentials to President Ford on August 19. 
For texts of the Ambassador's remarks and 
the President's reply, see Department of 
State press release dated August 19. 

Costa Rica 

The newly appointed Ambassador of the 
Republic of Costa Rica, Rodolfo Silva, pre- 

sented his credentials to President Ford on 
August 19. For texts of the Ambassador's 
remarks and the President's reply, see De- 
partment of State press release dated Au- 
gust 19. 


The newly appointed Ambassador of the 
Republic of Ghana, Samuel Ernest Quarm, 
presented his credentials to President Ford 
on August 19. For texts of the Ambassador's 
remarks and the President's reply, see De- 
partment of State press release dated August 


The newly appointed Ambassador of Spain, 
Jaime Alba, presented his credentials to 
President Ford on August 19. For texts of 
the Ambassador's remarks and the Presi- 
dent's reply, see Department of State press 
release dated August 19. 


The newly appointed Ambassador of the 
Syrian Arab Republic, Sabah Kabbani, pre- 
sented his credentials to President Ford on 
August 19. For texts of the Ambassador's 
remarks and the President's reply, see De- 
partment of State press release dated Au- 
gust 19. 


The newly appointed Ambassador of the 
Republic of Venezuela, Miguel Angel Burelli- 
Rivas, presented his credentials to President 
Ford on August 19. For texts of the Am- 
bassador's remarks and the President's reply, 
see Department of State press release dated 
August 19. 

October 28, 1974 


Annual Meetings of IMF and IBRD Boards of Governors 
Held at Washington 

The Boards of Governors of the Interna- 
tional Monetary Fund (IMF) and the In- 
ternational Bank for Reconstruction and 
Development (IBRD) and its affiliates held 
their regular annual meetings at Washington 
September 30-October U. Following are re- 
marks made by President Ford before the 
Boards of Governors on September 30 and a 
statement made on October 1 by Secretary of 
the Treasury William E. Simon, U.S. Gov- 
ernor of the Fund and Bank. 


Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents dated October 7 

It is a very great privilege and a very high 
honor to have the opportunity of making 
some preliminary remarks on this gathering 
here in the Nation's Capital of our country. 

I extend to each and every one of you a 
very, very warm welcome. I and all Amer- 
icans want your continuing friendship, and 
we welcome your constructive and thought- 
ful observations and recommendations. And 
I assure you at the outset that we will recip- 
rocate in every way in order to make prog- 
ress in this very vital area for each and every 
one of us. 

We come together at an unprecedented 
time of challenge in our world's economy. 
But that makes my welcome to all of you — 
those of you who must solve these serious 
problems — an even warmer welcome. The 
serious problems that confront us today are 
extremely complex and, I presume, in some 
respects controversial. 

We do this at a time of worldwide infla- 
tion at a rate far, far in excess of what any 
one of us can tolerate. 

We come here today at a time of unparal- 
leled disruptions in the supply of the world's 
major commodity. We are here today at a 
time of severe hindrances to the real growth 
and the real progress of many nations, in- 
cluding in particular some of the poorest 
and most unfortunate among us. 

We in America view these problems very 
soberly and without any rose-tinted glasses. 
But we believe at the same time the spirit 
of international cooperation which brought 
about the Bretton Woods agreement a gen- 
eration ago can resolve the problems today 
effectively and constructively. 

My very capable Secretary of the Treas- 
ury, Bill Simon, will speak in greater detail 
on how we, the United States, view these 
problems and how we think they can be 
solved. But I think I can sum up in general 
our thinking quite briefly. 

We in this country want solutions which 
serve very broad interests rather than narrow 
self-serving ones. We in America want more 
cooperation, not more isolation. We in 
America want more trade, not protectionism. 
We in America want price stability, not in- 
flation. We in America want growth, not 
stagnation. We want for ourselves, as you 
want for yourselves, and we all want for the 
world a better life for ourselves and for those 
generations that follow. 

You will help, and I am sure you will come 
forth with the kind of recommendations that 
will be beneficial. We want help to decide 
how this can best be done. The United States 
is fully prepared to join with your govern- 
ments and play a constructive leadership 

I say as I close, as I said at the outset, we 
want your friendship, your cooperation, and 


Department of State Bulletin 

we, as a country, will maximize to reciprocate 
in every way possible. 

Again, welcome to our Capital, Washing- 
ton, D.C., and the very, very best in this 
period of serious deliberation. 


Department of the Treasury press release dated October 1 

Our recent annual meetings have reflected 
encouraging changes in the international eco- 
nomic scene. Three years ago our attention 
was focused on the new economic policy in- 
troduced by the United States to eliminate a 
longstanding imbalance in the world econ- 
omy. Two years ago we launched a major 
reform of the international trade and pay- 
ments system. Last year we developed the 
broad outlines of monetary reform. 

This year circumstances are different. We 
face a world economic situation that is the 
most difficult since the years immediately 
after World War II. 

Our predecessors in those early postwar 
years responded well to the great challenges 
of that period. I am confident we can also 
respond appropriately to the challenges of 
our day. But first we must identify the issues 

Let me declare myself now on three of 
these key issues : 

— First, I do not believe the world is in 
imminent danger of a drift into cumulative 
recession, though we must be alert and ready 
to act quickly should the situation change 
unexpectedly. I do believe the world must 
concentrate its attention and its efforts on 
the devastating inflation that confronts us. 

— Second, I do not believe the international 
financial market is about to collapse. I do 
believe that situations can arise in which 
individual countries may face serious prob- 
lems in borrowing to cover oil and other 
needs. For that reason we must all stand 
prepared to take cooperative action should 
the need arise. 

— Third, I firmly believe that undue re- 
strictions on the production of raw materials 
and commodities in order to bring about tem- 
porary increases in their prices threaten the 

prosperity of all nations and call into ques- 
tion our ability to maintain and strengthen 
an equitable and effective world trading 

With respect to the first of these issues, 
it is clear that most countries are no longer 
dealing with the familiar trade-off of the 
past — balancing a little more or less inflation 
against little more or less growth and em- 
ployment. We are confronted with the threat 
of inflationary forces so strong and so per- 
sistent that they could jeopardize not only 
the prosperity but even the stability of our 
societies. A protracted continuation of in- 
flation at present rates would place destruc- 
tive strains on the framework of our present 
institutions — financial, social, and political. 

Our current inflation developed from a 
combination of factors. In addition to pres- 
sures emanating from cartel pricing prac- 
tices in oil, we have suffered from misfortune 
including bad weather affecting crops around 
the world; bad timing in the cyclical con- 
vergence of a worldwide boom; and bad 
policies reflected in years of excessive gov- 
ernment spending and monetary expansion. 
As financial officials, we cannot be held re- 
sponsible for the weather, but we must 
accept responsibility for government policies, 
and we must recommend policies that take 
fully into account the circumstances of the 
world in which we find ourselves. 

In today's circumstances in most countries 
there is, in my view, no alternative to policies 
of balanced fiscal and monetary restraint. We 
must steer a course of firm, patient, persist- 
ent restraint of both public and private de- 
mand, and we must maintain this course for 
an extended period of time, until inflation 
rates decrease. We must restore the confi- 
dence of our citizens in our economic future 
and our ability to maintain strong and stable 

Some are concerned that a determined in- 
ternational attack on inflation by fiscal and 
monetary restraint might push the world 
into a deep recession, even depression. I 
recognize this concern, but I do not believe 
we should let it distort our judgment. 

Of course we must watch for evidence of 
excessive slack. The day is long past when 


October 28, 1974 


the fight against inflation can be waged in 
any country by tolerating recession. We must 
remain vigilant to the danger of cumulative 
recession. But if there is some risk in moving 
too slowly to relax restraints, there is also a 
risk — and I believe a much greater risk — in 
moving too rapidly toward expansive policies. 
If we fail to persevere in our anti-inflation 
policies now, with the result that inflation be- 
comes more severe, then in time countermeas- 
ures will be required that would be so drastic 
as to risk sharp downturns and disruptions 
in economic activity. 

There is a tendency to lay much of the 
blame on the international transmission of 
inflation. Certainly with present high levels 
of world trade and investment, developments 
in any economy, be they adverse or favor- 
able, are quickly carried to other economies. 
But that does not absolve any nation from 
responsibility to adapt its financial policies 
so as to limit inflation and to shield its 
people from the ultimate damage which in- 
flation inflicts on employment, productivity, 
and social justice in our societies. 

Financial Mechanisms To Recycle Oil Funds 

In addition to inflation, public concern has 
centered on methods of recycling oil funds 
and on whether we need new institutions to 
manage those flows. 

So far, our existing complex of financial 
mechanisms, private and intergovernmental, 
has proved adequate to the task of recycling 
the large volumes of oil monies already 
moving in the system. Initially, the private 
financial markets played the major role, 
adapting in imaginative and constructive 
ways. More recently, government-to-govern- 
ment channels have increasingly been opened, 
and they will play a more important role as 
time goes by. New financing organizations 
have also been established by OPEC coun- 
tries [Organization of Petroleum Exporting 
Countries]. Our international institutions, 
and specifically the IMF and World Bank, 
have redirected their efforts to provide addi- 
tional ways of shifting funds from lenders 
to borrowers. The IMF responded rapidly in 
setting up its special oil facility. 

In our experience over the period since 
the sharp increase in oil prices, three points 
stand out: 

— First, the amount of new investments 
abroad being accumulated by the oil-export- 
ing countries is very large; we estimate ap- 
proximately $30 billion thus far in 1974. 

— Second, the net capital flow into the 
United States from all foreign sources, as 
measured by the U.S. current account deficit, 
has been small, about $2 billion so far this 
year. During the same period our oil import 
bill has been about $12 billion larger than it 
was in the comparable period last year. 

— Third, markets in the United States are 
channeling very large sums of money from 
foreign lenders to foreign borrowers. Our 
banks have increased their loans to for- 
eigners by approximately $15 billion since 
the beginning of the year, while incurring 
liabilities to foreigners of a slightly larger 
amount. This is one kind of effective re- 
cycling. And while some have expressed con- 
cern that excessive oil funds would seek to 
flow to the United States and would require 
special recycling efforts to move them out, 
the picture thus far has been quite different. 

No one can predict for sure what inflows 
of funds to the United States will be in the 
future. But it is our firm intention to main- 
tain open capital markets, and foreign bor- 
rowers will have free access to any funds 
which come here. The U.S. Government 
offers no special subsidies or inducements to 
attract capital here; neither do we place 
obstacles to outflows. 

Nonetheless some have expressed concern 
that the banking structure may not be able 
to cope with strains from the large financial 
flows expected in the period ahead. A major 
factor in these doubts has been the highly 
publicized difficulties of a small number of 
European banks and one American bank, 
which have raised fears of widespread finan- 
cial collapse. 

The difficulties of these banks developed in 
an atmosphere of worldwide inflation and of 
rapid increases in interest rates. In these 
circumstances, and in these relatively few 


Department of State Bulletin 

instances, serious management defects 
emerged. These difficulties were in no way 
the result of irresponsible or disruptive in- 
vestment shifts by oil-exporting countries. 
Nor were they the result of any failure in 
recycling or of any general financial crisis 
in any country. 

The lesson to be learned is this : In a 
time of rapid change in interest rates and 
in the amounts and directions of money flows, 
financial institutions must monitor their 
practices carefully. Regulatory and super- 
visory authorities, too, must be particularly 
vigilant. We must watch carefully to guard 
against mismanagement and speculative ex- 
cesses, for example, in the forward exchange 
markets. And we must make certain that 
procedures for assuring the liquidity of our 
financial systems are maintained in good 
working order. Central banks have taken 
major steps to assure this result. 

Although existing financial arrangements 
have responded reasonably well to the strains 
of the present situation — and we believe they 
will continue to do so — we recognize that 
this situation could change. We should remain 
alert to the potential need for new depar- 
tures. We do not believe in an attitude of lais- 
sez-faire, come what may. If there is a clear 
need for additional international lending 
mechanisms, the United States will support 
their establishment. 

We believe that various alternatives for 
providing such supplementary mechanisms 
should be given careful study. Whatever 
decision is made will have profound conse- 
quences for the future course of the world 
economy. We must carefully assess what our 
options are and carefully consider the full 
consequences of alternative courses of action. 
The range of possible future problems is a 
wide one, and many problems can be en- 
visaged that will never come to pass. What 
is urgently needed now is careful preparation 
and probing analysis. 

We must recognize that no recycling mech- 
anism will insure that every country can 
borrow unlimited amounts. Of course, coun- 
tries continue to have the responsibility to 
follow monetary, fiscal, and other policies 

such that their requirements for foreign bor- 
rowing are limited. 

But we know that facilities for loans on 
commercial or near-commercial terms are not 
likely to be sufficient for some developing 
countries whose economic situation requires 
that they continue to find funds on conces- 
sional terms. Traditional donors have con- 
tinued to make their contributions of such 
funds, and oil-exporting countries have made 
some commitments to provide such assist- 
ance. Although the remaining financing prob- 
lem for these countries is small in compari- 
son with many other international flows, it 
is of immense importance for those countries 
affected. The new Development Committee 
which we are now establishing must give 
priority attention to the problems confront- 
ing these most seriously affected developing 

Trade in Primary Products 

For the past two years, world trade in 
primary commodities has been subject to ab- 
normal uncertainties and strains. Poor crops, 
unusually high industrial demand for raw 
materials, transport problems, and limited 
new investment in extractive industries have 
all contributed to tremendous changes in 
commodity prices. Unfortunately, new forms 
of trade restraint have also begun to appear. 

In the past, efforts to build a world trad- 
ing system were concentrated in opening 
national markets to imports. Clearly we 
need now also to address the other side of 
the equation, that of supply. 

The oil embargo, and the sudden and 
sharp increase in the price of oil, with their 
disruptive effects throughout the world econ- 
omy, have of course brought these problems 
to the forefront of our attention. 

The world faces a critical decision on 
access to many primary products. In the 
United States we have sought in those areas 
where we are exporters to show the way by 
maximum efforts to increase production. 
Market forces today result in the export of 
many items, from wheat to coal, which some 
believe we should keep at home. But we 



October 28, 1974 


believe an open market in commodities will 
provide the best route to the investment and 
increased production needed by all nations. 
We believe that cooperative, market- 
oriented solutions to materials problems will 
be most equitable and beneficial to all na- 
tions. We intend to work for such coopera- 
tive solutions. 

Prospects for the Future 

In the face of our current difficulties — 
inflation, recycling, commodity problems — I 
remain firmly confident that with commit- 
ment, cooperation, and coordination, reason- 
able price stability and financial stability 
can be restored. 

The experience of the past year has dem- 
onstrated that although our economies have 
been disturbed by serious troubles, the inter- 
national trade and payments system has 
stood the test. 

Flexible exchange rates during this period 
have served us well. Despite enormous over- 
all uncertainties and sudden change in the 
prospects for particular economies, exchange 
markets have escaped crises that beset them 
in past years. The exchange rate structure 
has no longer been an easy mark for the 
speculator, and governments have not been 
limited to the dismal choice of either financ- 
ing speculative flows or trying to hold them 
down by controls. 

Another encouraging fact is that the 
framework of international cooperation has 
remained strong. Faced with the prospect 
of severe balance of payments deterioration, 
deficit countries have, on the whole, avoided 
shortsighted efforts to strengthen their cur- 
rent account positions by introducing restric- 
tions and curtailing trade. 

In the longer run, we look forward to re- 
inforcing this framework of cooperation 
through a broad-gauged multilateral negotia- 
tion to strengthen the international trading 
system. In the Tokyo round, we hope to 
reach widespread agreement both on trade 
liberalization measures — helping all coun- 
tries to use resources more efficiently through 
greater opportunities for exchange of goods 

and services — and on trade management 
measures — helping to solidify practices and 
procedures to deal with serious trade prob- 
lems in a spirit of equity and joint endeavor. 
It is gratifying that more and more govern- 
ments have recognized the opportunities and 
the necessity for successful, creative negotia- 
tions on trade. 

We in the U.S. Government recognize our 
own responsibility to move these negotia- 
tions along. Early last year we proposed to 
our Congress the Trade Reform Act to per- 
mit full U.S. participation in the trade nego- 
tiations. It is clear that in the intervening 
months the need for such negotiations has 
become all the more urgent. We have there- 
fore been working closely with the Congress 
on this crucial legislation, and we shall con- 
tinue to work to insure its enactment before 
the end of this year. 

In the whole field of international economic 
relations, I believe we are beginning to 
achieve a common understanding of the na- 
ture of the problems we face. There is 
greater public recognition that there lies 
ahead a long, hard worldwide struggle to 
bring inflation under control. Inflation is an 
international problem in our interdepend- 
ent world, but the cure begins with the 
policies of national governments. 

Success will require on the part of gov- 
ernments uncommon determination and per- 
sistence. There is today increasing aware- 
ness that unreasonable short-term exploita- 
tion of a strong bargaining position to raise 
prices and costs, whether domestically or in- 
ternationally, inevitably intensifies our prob- 

Finally, I am encouraged that our several 
years of intensive work to agree on improve- 
ments in the international monetary system 
have now begun to bear fruit. The discus- 
sions of the Committee of Twenty led to 
agreement on many important changes, some 
of which are to be introduced in an evolu- 
tionary manner and others of which we are 
beginning to implement at this meeting. 

For the immediate future, the IMF's new 
Interim Committee will bring to the Fund 
structure a needed involvement of world 


Department of State Bulletin 

financial leaders on a regular basis, provid- 
ing for them an important new forum for 
consideration of the financing of massive oil 
bills and the better coordination of national 
policies. The Interim Committee should also 
increasingly exercise surveillance over na- 
tions' policies affecting international pay- 
ments, thereby gaining the experience from 
which additional agreed guidelines for re- 
sponsible behavior may be derived. 

Moreover, discussions in the Interim Com- 
mittee can speed the consideration of needed 
amendments to the Fund's Articles of Agree- 
ment. These amendments, stemming from 
the work of the Committee of Twenty, will 
help to modernize the IMF and better equip 
it to deal with today's problems. 

For example, the articles should be 
amended so as to remove inhibitions on IMF 
sales of gold in the private markets, so that 
the Fund, like other official financial institu- 
tions, can mobilize its resources when they 
are needed. In order to facilitate future quota 
increases, the package of amendments should 
also include a provision to modify the present 
requirement that 25 percent of a quota sub- 
scription be in gold. Such an amendment 
will be a prerequisite for the quota increase 
now under consideration. And the amend- 
ment will be necessary in any event for us 
to achieve the objectives shared by all the 
participants in the Committee of Twenty of 
removing gold from a central role in the 
system and of assuring that the SDR [special 
drawing right] becomes the basis of valua- 
tion for all obligations to and from the IMF. 

Preparation of an amendment to embody 
the results of the current quinquennial re- 
view of quotas offers us still another oppor- 
tunity to reassess the Fund's role in helping 
to meet the payments problems of member 
nations in light of today's needs and under 
present conditions of relative flexibility in 
exchange rates. 

The trade pledge agreed by the Committee 
of Twenty provides an additional frame- 
work for cooperative action in today's trou- 
bled economic environment. It will mitigate 
the potential danger in the present situation 
of self-defeating competitive trade actions 

October 28, 1974 

and bilateralism. The United States has noti- 
fied its adherence to the pledge, and I 
urge other nations to join promptly in sub- 

The new Development Committee, still an- 
other outgrowth of the work of the Com- 
mittee of Twenty, will give us an independ- 
ent forum that will improve our ability to 
examine comprehensively the broad spec- 
trum of development issues. We look forward 
to positive results from this new committee's 
critical work on the problems of the coun- 
tries most seriously affected by the increase 
in commodity prices and on ways to insure 
that the private capital markets make a 
maximum contribution to development. 

The World Bank and Its Affiliates 

International cooperation for development 
is also being strengthened in other ways, 
notably through the replenishment of IDA 
[International Development Association]. A 
U.S. contribution of $1.5 billion to the fourth 
IDA replenishment has been authorized by 
Congress, and we are working with our con- 
gressional leaders to find a way to complete 
our ratification at the earliest possible date. 
A significant new group of countries has 
become financially able to join those extend- 
ing development assistance on a major scale. 
We would welcome an increase in their 
World Bank capital accompanied by a com- 
mensurate participation in IDA. 

The United States is proud of its role in 
the development of the World Bank over the 
past quarter century. We are confident that 
the Bank will respond to the challenges of 
the future as it has so successfully responded 
in the past. 

One of these challenges is to concentrate 
the Bank's resources to accelerate growth in 
those developing countries with the greatest 

A second challenge is to continue the 
Bank's annual transfer of a portion of its 
income to IDA. The recent increase in in- 
terest rates charged by the Bank is not 
sufficient to enable the Bank to continue 
transfers to IDA in needed amounts. We 


urge that the Bank's Board promptly find a 
way to increase significantly the average re- 
turn from new lending. 

A third challenge is that the Bank find 
ways to strengthen its commitment to the 
principle that project financing makes sense 
only in a setting of appropriate national eco- 
nomic policies, of effective mobilization and 
use of domestic resources, and of effective 
utilization of the private capital and the 
modern technology that is available inter- 
nationally on a commercial basis. 

I should mention also that we are con- 
cerned about the Bank's capital position. We 
should encourage the Bank to seek ways to 
assist in the mobilization of funds by tech- 
niques which do not require the backing of 
the Bank's callable capital. 

Within the Bank Group, we are accus- 
tomed to thinking mainly of the IFC [Inter- 
national Finance Corporation] in consider- 
ing private capital financing. While now 
small, the IFC is, in my view, a key element 
in the total equation and should be even more 
important in the future. But the Bank itself 
needs to renew its own commitment to stimu- 
lation of the private sectors of developing 

Finally, let me emphasize that the capable 
and dedicated leadership and staff of the 
World Bank have the full confidence and sup- 
port of the United States as they face the 
difficult challenges of the current situation. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the most prosperous 
period in the history of mankind was made 
possible by an international framework 
which was a response to the vivid memories 
of the period of a beggar-thy-neighbor world. 
Faced with staggering problems, the found- 
ers of Bretton Woods were inspired to seek 
cooperative solutions in the framework of 
a liberal international economic order. Out 
of that experience evolved an awareness that 
our economic and political destinies are in- 
extricably linked. 

Today, in the face of another set of prob- 
lems, we must again shape policies which 
reflect the great stake each nation has in 

the growth and prosperity of others. Because 
I believe that interdependence is a reality — 
one that all must sooner or later come to 
recognize — I remain confident that we will 
work out our problems in a cooperative 

The course which the United States will 
follow is clear. Domestically, we will manage 
our economy firmly and responsibly, resign- 
ing ourselves neither to the inequities of 
continued inflation nor to the wastefulness of 
recession. We will strengthen our produc- 
tive base; we will develop our own energy 
resources; we will expand our agricultural 
output. We will give the American people 
grounds for confidence in their future. 

Internationally, let there be no doubt as 
to our course. We will work with those 
who would work with us. We make no pre- 
tense that we can, or should, try to solve 
these problems alone, but neither will we 
abdicate our responsibility to contribute to 
their solution. Together, we can solve our 
problems. Let me reaffirm our desire and 
total commitment to work with all nations 
to coordinate our policies to assure the last- 
ing prosperity of all of our peoples. 

U.S. and Jordan Sign Agreement 
on Nonscheduled Air Services 

The Department of State announced on 
September 27 (press release 382) the United 
States and Jordan had signed on September 
21 at Amman a nonscheduled air service 
agreement betv/een the two governments. 
Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering signed for 
the United States and Nadim Zarou, Minister 
of Transportation, for Jordan. The agree- 
ment will provide the framework for charter 
operations between the two countries and 
will facilitate charter flights to the Holy 
Land and to historic religious sites in the 
Middle East. (For text of the agreement, see 
press release 382.) 


Department of State Bulletin 

Secretary Kissinger Hosts Dinner 
for Members of Arab League 

Following is an exchange of toasts be- 
tween Secretary Kissinger and Lebanese For- 
eign Minister Fu'ad Naffa', Chairman of the 
Council of the League of Arab States, at a 
dinner at the U.S. Mission to the United Na- 
tions at New York on September 30. 

Press release 388 dated October 1 


Mr. Secretary General, Excellencies, 
friends : I first of all want to make clear that 
this is not the beginning of a confrontation 
about oil prices [laughter and applause] — 
especially as long as you all outnumber me 
here. [Laughter.] 

I tried — I've seen so many of you over the 
past year so many times; in fact, I've seen 
more Arab leaders than any other part of 
the world — that I tried to promote my par- 
ticipation at the Arab summit later this 
month. [Laughter.] I must say the Foreign 
Minister of Morocco, who is very elegant 
and very subtle, did not speak English when 
the subject was raised. [Laughter and ap- 
plause.] So maybe next year. 

But we met here — many of us — about this 
time last year, and I had the impression that 
one or two of you had some slight reserva- 
tions about my appointment as Secretary of 
State. And it is true, leaving aside any par- 
ticular individuals, that for a period of many 
years the situation in the Middle East had 
become frozen. 

I spoke to my friend Umar [Umar al- 
Saqqaf, Saudi Arabian Minister of State for 
Foreign Affairs] two weeks before the Oc- 
tober war began, and I told him that we 
would try to make a major diplomatic effort 
in order to promote peace in the Middle 
East. And then there was the war, and since 
then we have had an opportunity to talk to- 
gether about many problems. 

I think great changes have occurred in the 

Middle East. I think the peoples in the Mid- 
dle East have realized that they should make 
a very serious effort to move toward peace 
which is based on the recognition of the 
rights of all peoples in the area. And the 
United States has understood that a condi- 
tional stalemate in the Middle East creates 
a constant source of tensions, and the eco- 
nomic consequences that flowed from this 
war have taught the whole world what was 
probably not intended ; for instance, that our 
global economy is interdependent in a way 
that few of us had realized and that pro- 
ducers and consumers — consumers among 
you gentlemen — depend on an understanding 
of each other's necessities that has made 
the world a global community. 

We have had the opportunity to meet 
many of you and to understand the aspira- 
tions for peace that exist in the area, and a 
beginning has been made toward a just 
and lasting peace. We recognize that it is 
only beginning. And in my speech to the 
General Assembly, I expressed the deter- 
mination of the United States to use all its 
influence to continue the process that was 
started on a basis that takes care of the 
aspirations of all of the countries in the area 
and that encompasses the concerns of the 

I will be going to the Middle East next 
week to see whether this negotiating process 
can be started, and we will spare no effort. 
With your understanding, your support, I 
am confident that we will make progress. 
That, at any rate, is what we have dedicated 
ourselves to. 

We also have started, as you all know, a 
discussion on the nature of the interdepend- 
ence of the global economy. This is not the 
place to go into it. And my friend Umar has 
already told me that he has prepared a 
crushing reply to be made public very soon. 

I want to say that as far as the United 
States is concerned, we are not going to 
enter these discussions in a spirit of con- 
frontation. It is our profound conviction 


October 28, 1974 


that what we are trying to convey to all of 
our friends is that it is impossible to achieve 
unilateral benefit and that it's peculiarly a 
situation where what is in the common bene- 
fit is also for the individual gain of every- 

How that will be worked out in time de- 
pends on many discussions, but on our side 
we approach these discussions in a spirit of 
good will and with the certainty that a 
reasonable solution that is just to all can be 

I want to take this opportunity, on a 
personal basis, to express my gratitude, the 
gratitude of the U.S. Government, to all of 
you who have welcomed my colleagues and 
me over the past year, on our many travels, 
with the proverbial Arab hospitality. 

We are engaged in a very difficult process 
— all of us together — and I have appreciated 
your understanding of our friendship. And 
I am confident that the problems before us 
will be solved in a manner that all of us in 
this room can be proud to have worked to- 

In this spirit I'd like to propose a toast 
to the friendship between the Arab peoples 
and the people of the United States. 


Mr. Secretary of State: I will thank you 
first because you didn't want to make con- 
frontation with Arabs here about the oil 
problem, because — as you said — it's not here 
that we can discuss it, and on the other hand, 
it would have been a little difficult for me, 
with my weak English, to discuss this prob- 
lem. [Laughter and applause.] 

Anyway, we conceive interdependence of 
the nations and the economies as a global 
community, but we conceive that in the 
global community right and justice will have 
their word to say and to be applied. 

About your participation at the confer- 
ence — the summit conference — we cannot 
decide it here too. [Laughter.] You have to 

apply [laughter and applause] and to see who 
will sponsor your application. [Laughter.] 
Maybe I will. 

Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to 
express to you on my behalf and on that of 
my colleagues, the Foreign Ministers of the 
other Arab states, our thanks and apprecia- 
tion for your gesture of inviting us this eve- 
ning. We find this gesture an expression of 
your desire to establish friendly relations 
with us on a personal level, to continue the 
dialogue, and to strengthen the relations be- 
tween the United States and our countries. 

I would like to assure you that we wel- 
come this gesture very much ; for we all are 
open to dialogue, desirous to strengthen the 
good relations between us and to exchange 
views in honesty and frankness. Our hope 
is to be able to develop friendly relations 
with your country on the basis of under- 
standing and cooperation in an atmosphere of 
mutual confidence and that these relations 
would serve real peace which is founded on 
the respect of the principle of right and 

I am confident that I am expressing the 
opinion of all my colleagues when I praise 
the great efforts which you have made dur- 
ing the past few months and the positive 
results which you have been able to achieve. 
I am also expressing their belief when I say 
that the present circumstances require in- 
tensification of these efforts, for the stage 
which we have reached today in cooperation 
with you has been necessary and useful. 
However, it is not sufficient to achieve peace. 
It is only a preliminary stage which has 
opened the door, provided that the intentions 
are sincere, to implement the basic require- 
ments of achieving peace. 

You know these requirements very well, 
Mr. Secretary of State, and you also un- 
doubtedly know that the real chance for peace 
depends to a great extent on the position 
which the United States takes in the next 
few months because of the great influence 
which she enjoys and the big potentials she 
has in her possession. 


Department of State Bulletin 

For this reason, I can say that our expec- 
tations from you are as great as the responsi- 
bilities which you share. 

I raise my glass to wish you health and 

Secretary Kissinger Hosts Luncheon 
for Latin American Foreign Ministers 

Following is an exchange of toasts be- 
tween Secretary Kissinger and Adolfo Mo- 
lina, Foreign Minister of Guatemala, at a 
luncheon for Latin American Foreign Min- 
isters and Permanent Representatives to the 
United Nations at the Center for Inter- 
American Relations at New York on October 

Press release 390 dated October 3 


Excellencies and friends: I speak before 
this group always with considerable hesita- 
tion, knowing the high quality of oratory 
that is assembled in this room and the judg- 
ments that will be made on my effort — not to 
speak of the replies that will be given either 
while I'm in the room or to the press after 
we all leave. 

We met in this room just about a year ago 
today, and it isn't often that one attends 
lunch and one can say it makes a difference 
in the affairs of nations. But I like to think 
that the new dialogue which we started in 
this room last year has already made a dif- 
ference and, if we carry out the promise that 
it contains, that it will make an even more 
important difference in the years ahead. 

I told you then, and still believe, that rela- 
tionships in the Western Hemisphere had 
been too long neglected and that if the United 
States could not establish a constructive and 
creative relationship on the basis of equality 
and mutual respect with its friends to the 
south, with so many historic ties connected 

to it, then how can we speak of a world 
structure or expect to be creative in other 
parts of the world? The Foreign Minister of 
Costa Rica replied, and so did the Foreign 
Minister of Colombia; and out of this de- 
veloped a series of meetings that we have had 
since then. 

I believe that the new dialogue has already 
removed some misunderstandings; it has al- 
ready identified some common problems ; and 
it has already created some working groups — 
on science and technology, on the multina- 
tional corporations — that deal with some of 
our specific aspirations and with our partic- 
ular grievances. 

But we are only at the very beginning of 
this process. All of our countries face prob- 
lems which have become global in nature. We 
all face the problem of inflation. Some of us 
are commodity exporters, some of us are com- 
modity importers, and some of us are both. 
But we all realize that we have become part of 
an interdependent world community and that 
none of us — not the United States nor any- 
body else — can solve these problems by purely 
national policies. So the question isn't really 
whether they should be dealt with in a larger 
forum — about that we have no choice — but 
with what group we should discuss, in what 
manner, and to what purpose. 

In this respect, as I have said to you in our 
several meetings over the past year, the 
United States attaches extraordinary impor- 
tance to its Western Hemisphere relation- 
ships. In Mexico City I used the word which 
was criticized by one or two of you with 
great eloquence when I spoke of "commu- 
nity" in the Western Hemisphere. And in 
fact I told my friend the Foreign Minister 
of Jamaica if we could only have excluded 
the Caribbeans we would have a happy meet- 
ing. [Laughter.] And as our influence grows, 
I don't exclude the possibility. [Laughter and 

But we do not insist on any particular 
phrase in the name of which we work to- 
gether. We recognize several countries here 
have attended meetings of the nonaligned, 


October 28, 1974 


and we realize that all countries here want 
to pursue foreign policies that reflect their 
own national interests and their own regional 

What we propose is that those problems 
which we identify as "common" we should 
deal with in a spirit of cooperation and on 
the basis of equality and thereby set an ex- 
ample to many other parts of the world of 
how problems must be dealt with. Nor is 
this proposed in any spirit of exclusivity, 
because eventually the problems I have enu- 
merated can be dealt with only on a global 

The United States hopes that in the next 
year we can translate the dialogue into con- 
crete achievement. We believe that the work- 
ing groups that already exist can lead to 
tangible results. We hope, and are quite con- 
fident, that our own Trade Reform Act will 
pass so that the systems of preferences — 
which we have talked about for too long — 
can finally be instituted. 

And beyond this, we are prepared to dis- 
cuss the political relationships in the West- 
ern Hemisphere, the restructuring of the 
OAS, with an open mind and paying careful 
heed to the predominant views of our friends 
in the Western Hemisphere, both within the 
OAS and at the forthcoming Foreign Minis- 
ters meeting in Argentina. 

We will work toward a concrete solution of 
our common problems. Within the United 
States, we will make an effort to anchor the 
Western Hemisphere relationship not only 
in the consciousness of our government but 
in the hearts of the people. And we believe 
that all of us have an obligation to contribute 
to this in our countries as much as we can. 

I'm glad to say that our new Assistant 
Secretary of State for Latin American Af- 
fairs, Mr. William Rogers, who is here with 
us, has accepted this position, because he has 
had a long history of dedication to Western 
Hemisphere relationships. You have in him a 
guarantee that what we will do together will 
not be done by one country for others nor 
will it be done in a spirit of bureaucracy, but 

with an attitude of friendship, with a feeling 
of humanity, and with a hope that what we 
do here in the Western Hemisphere is of 
significance not just for us ourselves but for 
a world that needs a demonstration of how 
free people working together can master 
their own future. 

It's in this spirit that I would like to pro- 
pose a toast to progress in the Western Hemi- 
sphere and to our close and growing friend- 


Mr. Secretary of State, Your Excellencies, 
and ladies and gentlemen: It is indeed a 
great pleasure — coincidentally, because of 
the fact that Guatemala is at present presid- 
ing at the Latin American group of na- 
tions — that I have been singled out for the 
specific honor of acting here as spokesman 
for the Latin American Foreign Ministers as 
well as for the Latin American Ambassadors 
to the United Nations to respond to the invi- 
tation to this banquet. 

In the first place, I should state — and I 
must state — that I want to thank you for 
your invitation to share bread and wine here 
with all of your colleagues in this spirit 
of friendship with the countries of Latin 
America and in the spirit of a continuous 

As was stated one year ago, when we held 
this meeting that has been referred to here, 
the dialogue is based on the basis of equality, 
as has been mentioned by Secretary Kissin- 
ger, as well as the principles of dignity of 
the members of the various countries of 
our hemisphere. It is because of this dia- 
logue that started here — that we continued 
in Bogota, Mexico City, Washington, D.C., 
and Atlanta — that we have been able to 
broach sudden problems in a practical man- 
ner with the practicalities that characterize 
Secretary Kissinger's approach, which can be 
summarized in use of few words and decisive 
action, in order to state that we here have a 


Department of State Bulletin 

responsibility to deal with the problems of 
the economic development of our countries, 
the problems that have been mentioned of 
transfer of technology, the problems of the 
transnational corporations, and also other 
points that are related. 

We have a number of study groups that 
have met both in conferences. We have had 
working groups that have worked on all of 
the subjects that have been referred to as 
well as some of the others incorporated in 
the Declaration of Tlatelolco. It is in this 
spirit of Tlatelolco that the new dynamics of 
the relationships in the hemisphere toward 
greater economic development have been con- 

This new year of the dialogue is one that 
brings with it numerous problems, as Secre- 
tary Kissinger has suggested, and reflects 
ominous clouds on the horizon in which the 
policies of the different countries will have to 
be defined. We have noted problems, such as 
the unbalance in the balance of payments 
that exists between our respective countries 
and, as has sometimes been also stated by the 
Secretary at the United Nations, the prob- 
lems that come forth with diffusion of knowl- 
edge — specifically, with reference to nuclear 
technology — as well as the problems relating 
to the inflationary spirit which is affecting 
most countries in the world. 

The history of the world confirms the 
fable of Nemesis — one that really rules the 
destiny of man, one of providing man with 
the type of abundance that he desires — that 
he might be led to the type of nuclear tech- 
nology which could destroy humanity, one 
in which an excess in the amount of money 
or funds available could, in fact, engulf 
humanity in a situation as we conceived it. 

With respect to the concept of interdepend- 
ence, this is one that, I would like to point 
out, has both a positive and negative conno- 
tation. It is positive in the sense that the 
peoples of the world can no longer live in 
isolation. We all need from one another in 
order to help ourselves. But it also has a 
negative side in the sense that problems of 

the world now affect everybody in the world 
and therefore we need joint solutions. 

For the Latin Americans and Latin Amer- 
ican countries, the question of economic 
security is of great importance, and that is 
why we attach special significance to the 
charter of duties and obligations of member 
states in the realm of economic relationships 
— in order to guarantee our mutual economic 
security. We find a twofold problem that we 
are facing, and this is one that I was spe- 
cifically facing when I started to address this 
group. In the first place, I was not in- 
formed or aware of the points that Secretary 
Kissinger might bring up in his speech. And, 
secondly, I am not aware of the points of 
view that my colleagues in this room share 
with us. 

I believe therefore that in order to fulfill 
the mission that was specifically assigned to 
me I should express to the Secretary of State, 
on behalf of all of you, our great interest in 
all of the issues that he has raised. The 
matters that have been raised here will be 
studied by our respective governments. They 
will be considered and reflected upon. And 
in the future we will be able to come to other 
meetings with specific proposals and recom- 
mendations to deal with them. 

I believe that I express the gratification 
that we all share here at the appointment of 
William Rogers, who has always been, and is 
considered, a great friend of Latin America. 

It is in this context that we want to point 
to our hopes that we will be able to carry 
forth in the extraordinary program and 
tasks that we have set for us and that Secre- 
tary Kissinger so well understands in our 
own hemisphere and also the extraordinary 
hope that we have because we know how well 
Secretary Kissinger is familiar and aware 
with the problems that confront all of the 
countries of the world and the repercussions 
that those world problems have on the West- 
ern Hemisphere. 

Finally, I would like to express a great 
appreciation to you, Mr. Secretary, for the 
special hospitality, understanding, and soli- 

October 28, 1974 


darity that has been reflected here with all 
our friends of the Western Hemisphere, and 
I would like to express our hope that we 
may be able to continue this spirit of friend- 
ship and progress among our countries. 

Department Discusses Decolonization 
of Portuguese African Territories 

Statement by Donald B. Easum 
Assistant Secretary for African Affairs x 

My appearance before you today is partic- 
ularly significant and timely in the light of 
the important changes that are taking place 
in southern Africa as the result of recent 
developments in Portugal and Portuguese- 
speaking Africa. 

In March of this year, when a representa- 
tive of my Bureau last appeared before this 
subcommittee, we stated that the then re- 
cently published book by General [Antonio] 
Spinola presaged possible changes in the 
Portuguese territories. The book has now 
become history, and General Spinola has re- 
signed from public office. But the Portuguese 
Government since the coup in April has re- 
mained dedicated to decolonization in its 
African territories. 

We have been gratified to observe how 
Portuguese decolonization efforts have been, 
in the spirit of the Lusaka Manifesto, met by 
a responsible and helpful attitude on the part 
of African nations, a number of whom 
greatly assisted in the negotiating effort that 
enabled the Portuguese and Portuguese Afri- 
can nationalist movements to reach the 
agreements which have given such impetus 
to the program of self-determination in 
Portuguese Africa. 

1 Made before the Subcommittee on Africa of the 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs on Oct. 8. 
The complete transcript of the hearings will be 
published by the committee and will be available 
from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern- 
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 

As the committee is aware, the efforts of 
the parties concerned have brought Portu- 
guese-speaking Africa to the threshold of 
total independence. On September 10 Portu- 
gal recognized the independence of Guinea- 
Bissau, which is now a fully independent 
member of the family of nations. On Septem- 
ber 7 Portugal and the Liberation Front of 
Mozambique (FRELIMO) agreed, in Lu- 
saka, to the installation of a joint transi- 
tional government that would prepare the 
country for full independence scheduled for 
June 25, 1975. This government was in- 
stalled in Lourengo Marques on September 
20. The territories of Angola, Cape Verde, 
Sao Tome, and Principe are still Portuguese 
dependencies, but Portugal has agreed that 
each has the right to independence and has 
taken important steps toward that end. 

In Angola, however, the decolonization 
process is seriously complicated by the fact 
that the three principal liberation movements 
remain divided among themselves. They have 
been unable to agree on a common position 
concerning negotiations with the Portuguese, 
who have offered them participation in a 
provisional government. 

The United States is pleased by the prog- 
ress that has been made in the decolonization 
of Portuguese Africa. As you know, the 
United States has long espoused the prin- 
ciple of self-determination for the peoples 
of these territories. We are fully aware of 
the difficulties still to be overcome before 
the achievement of complete independence in 
all of the territories. 

The United States was happy to be able 
to recognize the new Republic of Guinea- 
Bissau on September 10. Earlier, on August 
12, we had supported its application to the 
United Nations, in which it is now a full 
and participating member. President Ford's 
letter of recognition contained our offer to 
establish diplomatic relations with Guinea- 
Bissau. Based on recent conversations I have 
had with officials of the new Guinea-Bissau 
Government, I believe that this offer will be 


Department of State Bulletin 

The United States is also looking forward 
to establishing and strengthening mutual- 
ly beneficial relations with each of the 
other emerging Portuguese-speaking African 
states. That includes not only contact with 
new governments but, we hope, meaningful 
dialogue with liberation movements and po- 
litical groupings that continue to play such 
a vital role in the process of decolonization. 

While we are giving our full moral support 
to the decolonization process, we also are 
looking into ways and means within con- 
gressional mandates of assisting the emerg- 
ing states, if they desire our assistance. In 
this connection, a State/ AID [Agency for 
International Development] Working Group 
has been established in the Department to 
study ways in which we might respond to 
requests for such assistance. 

The Working Group is looking in partic- 
ular at educational needs and at possibilities 
for assisting those segments of the societies 
that are under greatest hardship. They are 
also investigating the possible extension of 
existing regional programs into Portuguese- 
speaking Africa. Finally, we have already 
provided modest emergency assistance to 
help alleviate the dislocation resulting from 
the recent disturbance in Lourenco Marques. 

I hope that I have made clear the hopeful 
and helpful attitude of the United States 
toward these new and encouraging develop- 
ments in Africa. All of this must of course 
be looked at in the broader perspective of 
southern Africa and the basic right of all 
peoples to self-government. 

We believe that a great deal of credit 
should go to the post-April government in 
Portugal and to those African states and 
individuals who have played such a driving 
and dedicated role in bringing about these 
significant developments. We can only urge 
that the patience and good judgment that 
have so far characterized the process of de- 
colonization continue to prevail as the rest 
of Portuguese-speaking Africa moves toward 
independence in what we hope will be a 
peaceful and stable manner. 

Food for Peace Report for 1973 
Transmitted to Congress 

Message From President Ford 1 

To the Congress of the United States: 

I am pleased to transmit to the Congress 
the 1973 annual report on agricultural export 
activities carried out under Public Law 480 
(Food for Peace). This has been a successful 
program. It has provided a channel for hu- 
manitarian assistance, promoted economic 
development and, in general, supported for- 
eign policy objectives of the United States. 

Throughout the year, the Food for Peace 
program demonstrated its flexibility in a 
changing agricultural situation. Because of 
the tight commodity supply situation in the 
United States, shipments during the year 
were somewhat restricted. This was espe- 
cially true of wheat and wheat product ship- 
ments. However, our food contributions to 
the drought-stricken African countries, in- 
cluding Ethiopia, were substantial. In both 
East and West Africa, United States food 
aid represented about 40 percent of the total 
supplied by the international community. The 
level of U.S. contributions to the World Food 
Program and the U.S. voluntary agencies was 
maintained and the Title I concessional sales 
programs continued in such high-priority 
countries as Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cambodia, 
Israel, Pakistan, and Vietnam. 

The Food for Peace program continues to 
be the primary U.S. food aid activity. Con- 
cessional sales programs continued to en- 
courage recipient countries to establish self- 
help objectives and also support economic 
development projects. The program retains 
its emphasis on improving the nutrition of 
pregnant and nursing mothers, babies, and 
pre-school children, the most nutritionally 
significant periods of human life. Although 
most programs have aspects of agricultural 

1 Transmitted on Sept. 25 (text from White House 
press release); also printed as H. Doc. 93-362, 93d 
Cong., 2d sess., which includes the text of the report. 

October 28, 1974 


market development, specific programs for 
trade expansion have been limited because 
of strong commercial demand. Such programs 
could be resumed under changed supply con- 

As 1973 legislation authorized the exten- 
sion of the Public Law 480 program through 
1977, it will go on playing its vital role in 
terms of development assistance, trade ex- 
pansion, and promotion of our foreign policy 

Gerald R. Ford. 

The White House, September 25, 197 h. 

U.S. Welcomes Turkish Decision 

To Change Poppy-Harvesting Method 

Department Announcement l 

The Turkish Government announced its 
decision July 1 of this year to authorize the 
resumption of the cultivation of opium pop- 
pies. Since that time there has been an on- 
going high-level dialogue between our two 
governments during which we have made 
clear our concern at the possibility of a re- 
newed flow of heroin made from Turkish 
opium to the United States. We stressed the 
vital need for effective control. 

A special U.N. team has also recently held 
discussions on this subject in Turkey. The 
Turkish Prime Minister has repeatedly as- 
sured us of his government's strong deter- 
mination to prevent smuggling. The Turkish 
Government has informed us that it has de- 
cided in principle to adopt a method of har- 
vesting the poppies called the "poppy straw 
process," which involves the collection by the 
Turkish Government of the whole poppy pod 
rather than the opium gum. Traditionally 
the opium gum was taken by the farmers 
through lancing the pod in the field. And it 
was a portion of this gum that was illegally 

1 Read to news correspondents on Sept. 20 by Rob- 
ert Anderson, Special Assistant to the Secretary of 
State for Press Relations. 

We are very pleased with this decision. 
With effective policing to make sure that the 
opium gum is not illegally extracted by the 
farmers, the reflow of heroin that we fear 
can be avoided. 

Congressional Documents 
Relating to Foreign Policy 

93d Congress, 2d Session 

Department of State Appropriations Authorization 
Act of 1974. Report to accompany H.R. 16168. H. 
Rept. 93-1241. July 31, 1974. 8 pp. 

Temporary Suspension of Duty on Certain Forms of 
Zinc. Report to accompany H.R. 6191. S. Rept. 
93-1058. August 1, 1974. 5 pp. 

Extending the Temporary Suspension of Duty on 
Certain Classifications of Yarns of Silk. Report 
to accompany H.R. 7780. S. Rept. 93-1059. Au- 
gust 1, 1974. 5 pp. 

Elimination of Duty on Methanol Imported for Cer- 
tain Uses. Report to accompany H.R. 11251. S. 
Rept. 93-1060. August 1, 1974. 5 pp. 

Temporary Suspension of Duty on Crude Feathers 
and Downs. Report to accompany H.R. 11452. 
S. Rept. 93-1061. August 1, 1974. 5 pp. 

Temporary Suspension of Duty on Synthetic Rutile. 
Report to accompany H.R. 11830. S. Rept. 93- 
1062. August 1, 1974. 5 pp. 

Temporary Suspension of Duty on Certain Carboxy- 
methyl Cellulose Salts. Report to accompany H.R. 
12035. S. Rept. 93-1063. August 1, 1974. 4 pp. 

Suspension of Duties on Certain Forms of Copper. 
Report to accompany H.R. 12281. S. Rept. 93-1064. 
August 1, 1974. 5 pp. 

Temporary Suspension of Duty on Certain Horses. 
Report to accompany H.R. 13631. S. Rept. 93- 
1065. August 1, 1974. 4 pp. 

Telegraph and Telephone Regulations, 1973. Message 
from the President of the United States transmit- 
ting the telegraph regulations and the telephone 
regulations along with the appendices thereto and 
a final protocol to those regulations, done at Ge- 
neva, April 11, 1973. S. Ex. E. August 2, 1974. 
33 pp. 

Ratification of the Geneva Protocol of 1925. Report 
to accompany H. Res. 1258. H. Rept. 93-1257. 
August 2, 1974. 10 pp. 

World Food Resolution. Report to accompany S. Res. 
329. S. Rept. 93-1070. August 5, 1974. 3 pp. 

Amending the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, and 
for Other Purposes. Report, together with supple- 
mental views, to accompany H.R. 15977. H. Rept. 
93-1261. August 6, 1974. 20 pp. 

Authorization of Icebreaking Operation in Foreign 
Waters. Report to accompany S. 3308. S. Rept. 
93-1084. August 12, 1974. 3 pp. 

Situation in Cyprus. Report to accompany S. Res. 
381. S. Rept. 93-1092. August 15, 1974. 2 pp. 


Department of State Bulletin 


Cooperative Actions To Solve Economic and Social Problems 

Statement by Senator Charles H. Percy 

U.S. Representative to the U.N. General Assembly * 

On this speck of debris in the universe 
which we call earth, no individual, no nation, 
no race can be an island unto itself. The 
economic and social issues that face one 
face us all. 

Philosophically, the United States is com- 
mitted to improving the economic and social 
welfare of humanity. The great difficulty is 
to translate our philosophical commitments 
into political realities. It is easy to speak 
in platitudes, but much harder to talk in the 
political realities of what can be done. 

Certainly the major issues facing the 29th 
Assembly will be economic. They will be 
interwoven in the fabric of virtually every 
topic discussed. Without economic resources, 
we cannot realistically move to solve the vast 
social problems that beset this planet. This 
does not mean that economic and social 
problems are separate. They are not. In 
fact, many of the solutions to the economic 
problem of increasing the wealth of the world 
are closely tied to social conditions. 

The state of humanity necessitates that the 
agenda before us be broad. The issues we 
must deal with this year include inflation, 
trade reform, monetary reform, economic 
assistance, population planning, food produc- 
tion, the status of women, and education. 
But as essential to all these issues, we must 
resolve through open discussion and negotia- 
tion the lowering of the price of interna- 
tional crude oil. 

1 Made in Committee II (Economic and Financial) 
of the U.N. General Assembly on Oct. 1 (text from 
USUN press release 123). 

The price of international crude oil is the 
most destabilizing element in the world econ- 
omy today. Its price denies the developing 
countries of the world adequate energy sup- 
plies to run their economies and fertilizer 
to grow their crops. The most seriously 
affected nations must take the rise in price 
directly out of the very low standard of 
living of their populace. 

While the developed countries can borrow 
funds among each other in the short run, 
they will not be able to stand the drain of 
funds for a long period. No matter how 
effective the recycling of dollars is from oil 
exporters to oil importers, regional and na- 
tional balance of payments disparities will 
grow so great that even many now-developed 
countries will be faced with international 

Such events could collapse the trade and 
monetary systems that have been so painful- 
ly constructed since the end of World War II. 
This in turn could certainly mean economic 
catastrophe, first for the less developed na- 
tions of the world, then for oil-dependent 
countries, and last for such countries as the 
U.S.S.R. and the United States who have oil 
resources of their own. And further, what 
optimism can there be in the long run for 
nations, primarily oil producers, in such a 
world ? 

No one can benefit from a worldwide de- 
pression. What will be lost is years of eco- 
nomic growth, resulting in despair for at 
least a generation of the world's people. 
What will be lost is a chance to work on our 


October 28, 1974 


social and economic interests together. We 
must work together. There is no reasonable, 
rational alternative. Economic nationalism 
should not bring down the world economic 
system, and thus social and political sys- 
tems ; nor should that system be operated for 
the benefit of only a few. 

An alternative solution, of course, to the 
problem of oil prices is the development of 
alternative energy sources. All nations must 
work cooperatively on energy research to 
achieve technical breakthroughs to harness 
new sources of energy and better develop 
existing energy sources. 

At best, however, this is a longer term 
solution, and for the time being most nations 
will continue to be heavily reliant on oil. That 
is why the policy of certain oil-producing 
nations engaged in unilateral price fixing on 
a noneconomic basis, commonly known as 
cartels, poses such severe economic prob- 
lems to the world. 

Such practices, whether they be by sellers 
or buyers, by industrial nations or less de- 
veloped, can be ruinous. Like retaliatory 
tariff barriers and competitive devaluations, 
economic nationalism can spread through the 
body of the world economy and essentially 
destroy it. The world has come too far to 
return to barter. 

This body should further note that such 
practices are contrary to the principles and 
objectives of the General Agreement on Tar- 
iffs and Trade (GATT) in that they are 
monopolistic, anticompetitive, and distort 
flows of resources. 

To be more specific, three key international 
organizations — GATT, the IMF [Interna- 
tional Monetary Fund], and the IBRD 
(World Bank) [International Bank for Re- 
construction and Development] — are the ba- 
sis for today's world trade and payments sys- 
tem. Thus the international payments system 
itself is threatened by these practices. 

Unilateral price fixing on a noneconomic 
basis is usually bad no matter who does it — 
not just in oil but in all commodities. Those 
who decry the present oil crisis must also 
look to themselves — are they in the process 
of fixing other prices? 

If these practices are continued, those 
shouldering the brunt of such practices, par- 
ticularly in developing countries, can take 
only so much. Masses of unemployed and 
starving will bring a powerful political and 
economic reaction against those causing the 

Therefore we must all consider in this 
forum and send home to our governments the 
following message: 

— Abandon monopolistic economic prac- 
tices, wherever they may exist, that are now 
the main cause of distortion in our world 

— Return to and reaffirm the open trade 
and free payments principles of these orga- 
nizations — the United Nations, GATT, IMF, 
and IBRD. 

— Understand that the long-term prosper- 
ity of each nation depends to a degree on 
the prosperity of all nations. 

— Understand that not to correct these 
problems is to threaten grave economic dis- 
ruption worldwide. 

My own country certainly has a strong 
responsibility to help achieve these ends. 
Less developed countries need more access to 
the markets of developed nations. While our 
trading system is built on the idea of com- 
parative advantage, the realities of econom- 
ics are such that it is difficult to penetrate 
major markets and risky to move against 
established competition. 

The trade reform bill now before the U.S. 
Senate establishes the principle of trade 
preferences for less developed countries. It 
is not enough, I would be the first to admit, 
but it is a start. As a realist, I can only re- 
port that it may be politically difficult to get 

Need for New Solutions 

The economic problems facing the world 
today have been further aggravated by world 
social problems and demonstrate the need 
to view economic and social questions as in- 
extricably related. The solution of one with- 
out the other is impossible. 


Department of State Bulletin 

As stated by the U.N. Committee for De- 
velopment Planning in its 1970 report: 2 

While it is evident that high rates of growth of 
output and income have to be realized in these 
(developing) countries in order to eliminate mass 
poverty, to generate fuller opportunities all round 
and to finance some of the social measures, the 
process of development has itself to be viewed in 
terms of fundamental structural changes and as 
much with reference to concepts and methods appro- 
priate to planned social transformation as those 
customary to economic analysis and policy-making. 
. . . for this reason, the distinction often made be- 
tween economic and social objectives is not a very 
meaningful one to draw. [Italic added.] 

How true. In the search for solutions to 
our traumatic economic and social problems, 
we must find a rational balance between 
people and resources so that the quality of 
human life worldwide may be enhanced. 

If the problems basic to human and na- 
tional survival — the population explosion, 
food and resource shortages, mass poverty — 
are to be solved, new, nonstereotypic solu- 
tions are needed. 

Central to the creative and innovative 
processes needed to produce these new solu- 
tions is education. Education is the fount of 
knowledge and thus the basis from which 
civilization, cultures, and humankind have 
grown and advanced. Education has been 
the basis from which the world has made 
its immense advances in science and tech- 
nology. If the world's acute problems of 
poverty, disease, and hunger are to be re- 
solved, education must continue to produce 
the breakthroughs necessary to expand agri- 
cultural, industrial, and technological pro- 
ductivity. Increasing technological progress, 
however, will require new skills and re- 
sources. Only through education will the need 
for expanded skills and resources keep in 
line with new demands. 

That education is integral to national de- 
velopment goes without saying. Education, 
however, is also the basis for personal de- 
velopment. It is through education that 
people seek to improve themselves and reach 
full potential. 

We have to take into account that we are 

! U.N. doc. E/4776. 

all committed to education. The more educa- 
tion people get, the more dissatisfied they 
become with their lives when the shackles of 
ignorance are thrown off, if their rising 
expectations are not met. They will become 
a destabilizing force within each nation if 
they have no hope and are faced only with 

Full Utilization of Talents of Women 

The ultimate purpose of economic growth, 
stability, and well-being is to provide the 
opportunities for a better life to all people. 
Particularly important will be the elimina- 
tion of mass poverty and social injustice. 

One of the greatest economic mistakes and 
social injustices that almost every nation in 
the world has at one time or another been 
guilty of is the assignment of women to a 
second-class role in society. 

Actually, the role women often do play 
in contributing to social and economic devel- 
opment has perhaps gone as unrecognized as 
the potential role they can play. But, with 
great justification, no longer are they going 
to tolerate it. Action must be taken to cor- 
rect both of these problems if women are to 
be fully integrated into all aspects of na- 
tional and international economic, political, 
and social activity. 

Both economic and social development re- 
quire the full utilization and recognition of 
all individuals in society — economic develop- 
ment because all potential resources must be 
utilized in this effort, social development be- 
cause a fundamental precept of human rights 
is that all people must be allowed to partici- 
pate in the economic and political processes 
by which decisions are made about their 

It was because of this that I sponsored 
legislation in the U.S. Senate requiring the 
United States to work so far as possible 
toward the integration of women into the 
implementation of our foreign aid programs. 
This requirement is now law, but we must 
work to assure that its intent is carried out. 

Similarly, we must all work to assure that 
the principle of equality for women estab- 
lished in the original U.N. Charter is realized 


October 28, 1974 


— not only in the nations of the world but in 
the functioning of the United Nations itself. 
We must all work, individually and collec- 
tively, on the economic and social changes 
necessary to bring this about. 

Education and the avenues for greater 
participation in society give birth to rising 
expectations, expectations which cannot be 
met without new economic development. 

The United Nations has wisely designated 
1975 as International Women's Year. But 
let us not wait until next year to develop 
programs to better utilize one-half of the 
world's human resources. ECOSOC [Eco- 
nomic and Social Council] has called for a 
World Conference on the Status of Women, 
which Colombia has offered to host, in June 
1975. We fully support the objective of the 
Year and the conference and will do all we 
can to insure the success of both. 

Global Approach to Population Problems 

In another area involving the linking of 
economic and social issues, the United Na- 
tions was living up to its potential as a 
global problem-solving organization in nam- 
ing 1974 as World Population Year and in 
sponsoring the World Population Conference 
in Bucharest. In sponsoring Population Year 
and the conference, the United Nations has 
successfully assumed a leadership role in 
urging upon the world community the need 
for a unified approach to development and 
the problems that accompany development. 
At the Bucharest World Population Con- 
ference, I was particularly struck by the 
complex interrelationships of the economic 
and social problems we face. The subject of 
population was once the esoteric realm of 
demographers — scientists whose concern was 
with numbers and distributions of people. 
In 1974, however, the population issue can 
no longer be separated from the problems of 
agriculture, resources, land use, health, edu- 
cation, women's rights, as well as all other 
aspects of economic and social development. 
In Bucharest, the global approach to prob- 
lem solving worked well. Candid expressions 
of widely disparate views were heard, but 
they did not obscure the real desire of 

participating nations to reach agreement on 
approaches to population problems. The 
World Plan of Action, the document result- 
ing from the Conference, is an outline which 
any nation may follow in its search for im- 
proved living conditions and opportunities 
for its people. 

The Plan of Action is an excellent base 
upon which the United Nations and its mem- 
ber nations can build. But the Plan of 
Action must be recognized as only an out- 
line and only a foundation for continuing 
efforts. The United Nations must not delay 
in urging all nations to accept as their own 
and to implement the far-reaching recom- 
mendations of the Plan of Action. At this 
point, the Plan of Action is only a docu- 
ment. Concerted efforts by us here in New 
York and by the governments of all nations 
can, however, transform that document into 
a reality that will mean a higher quality of 
life for all people. 

Short-Term and Long-Term Food Problems 

Finally, no problem is more economically 
and socially intertwined or global in dimen- 
sion or in greater immediate need of U.N. 
attention and assistance than the world food 
situation. During a recent visit to South 
Asia, I saw firsthand the magnitude of un- 
met nutritional needs the world faces. 

The problem is that if food production 
only stays even with demand for the fore- 
seeable future, then it will be impossible to 
upgrade the diets of those who exist on sub- 
sistence or lesser diets at present. Hundreds 
of millions of persons around the world are 
undernourished or even malnourished. More- 
over, if production fails to live up to ex- 
pectations for any one of a number of rea- 
sons, then the millions who are now mal- 
nourished because of subsistence diets will 
fall below this dietary level. They will 

We face two different but related prob- 
lems. There is the short-term problem of 
providing food aid to meet existing food 
emergencies and of organizing a system to 
deal with similar situations which may arise 
in the next few years, and there is the longer 


Department of State Bulletin 

range problem of increasing worldwide pro- 
duction, particularly in developing countries. 
This latter problem requires nothing short 
of a revolution in the countryside of develop- 
ing nations. Neither set of problems will be 
easily solved. For our part, the United 
States this year will increase the amount of 
money we spend on food aid for others. 

Such aid, however, even from many na- 
tions, is not enough and can never be enough. 
Long-term relief can only be accomplished 
through increased agricultural production in 
developing countries. As a U.S. Senator from 
a major agricultural state, I know that the 
lives of millions in distant lands cannot be 
allowed to depend on crop success or failure 
in another country. 

Developing countries must have fertilizer 
production capability and the technological 
base from which to guide their own growth. 
And the developed nations must assist them 
in achieving this independent base. This is 
the main avenue to economic and social 
growth with justice. 

I find it encouraging that the concept of 
a U.N.-sponsored World Food Conference 
developed simultaneously in the U.S. Govern- 
ment and at the last Nonaligned Conference. 
The fact that we worked together in the last 
Assembly and the Economic and Social Coun- 
cil to bring this idea to fruition bodes well. 
But as with the Population Conference, the 
United Nations has responsibility to carry 
through, and well beyond the World Food 
Conference, with efforts to solve the problem 
of production, storage, and distribution we 
all face. 

In summation then, what the global com- 
munity must do and what the United Nations 
must actively encourage are the following: 

1. The price of international crude oil 
must be lowered. 

2. The development of alternative sources 
of energy must be encouraged. 

3. Economic nationalism should be dis- 
couraged, and we must return to the open 
trade and free payments principles of the 
United Nations along with a monetary sys- 
tem adapted to our changing world. 

October 28, 1974 

4. Educational opportunities for all peo- 
ples must continue to expand, but opportuni- 
ties for economic fulfillment must expand 

5. Women must be given a greater role in 
economic development. 

6. The United Nations must help en- 
courage countries to deal with population 
problems by developing plans to eliminate 
unrestrained population growth. 

7. We must solve the world's food prob- 
lems through an international system of na- 
tionally held food reserves and increased 
investments in research, fertilizer produc- 
tion, and development assistance. 

Only if we really work together on these 
problems and dedicate ourselves to their so- 
lutions will we have the chance to actually 
benefit all of humankind. If we just let 
empty rhetoric consume our days this fall, 
then we will have empty stomachs. Nations 
will have to empty treasuries, and eventually 
we will all go down together. On the other 
hand, through cooperative action in the self- 
interest of all nations, we can find solutions 
to these problems which will be worthy of 
the objectives of this organization. 

United States Makes Contribution 
to U.N. Fund for Namibia 

USUN press release 124 dated October 2 

On October 2 the U.S. Mission to the 
United Nations forwarded a check for 
$50,000 to the office of Secretary General 
Waldheim for the Fund for Namibia. The 
check honored the U.S. pledge of March 21. 
The United States fully recognizes the U.N.'s 
responsibility for Namibia and considers the 
Fund a necessary and appropriate effort to 
aid some of the territory's people. It is the 
belief of the U.S. Government that the U.N. 
Fund for Namibia should be supported solely 
by voluntary contributions. The U.S. contri- 
bution was made subject to the condition 
that it did not exceed one-third of the total 
contributions to the Fund. 


U.S. Explains Vote on Resolutions 
on South Africa 

Following is a statement made in the U.N. 
General Assembly by U.S. Representative 
John Scali on September 30, together with 
the text of a resolution adopted by the As- 
sembly that day. 


USUN press release 121 dated September 30 

My delegation finds the policy of apartheid 
an illegal and obnoxious violation of funda- 
mental human rights. It is as contrary to 
that for which my government stands as it 
is to that for which the United Nations 

We understand why many seek this oppor- 
tunity to assert their moral outrage at this 
heinous policy. We for our part, however, 
do not believe the question of credentials 
was an appropriate one for this purpose. 
The purpose of evaluating the authenticity 
of the credentials submitted to the Secretary 
General is clearly to insure that the indi- 
viduals representing states in this body have 
been authorized to do so by the government 
of the country they are here to represent. 

The policies of those governments are not 
a legitimate consideration in this context. 
There are other times and other contexts 
in which they may be. But what is unques- 
tionably true is that here they are not. No 
one can reasonably argue with the facts that 
South Africa is a member of the United 
Nations, that the government which has sent 
representatives to this Assembly is indeed 
the government in power in that country, 
that an appropriate official of that country 
signed the necessary credential documents, 
and that they were submitted in a proper, 
timely way. 

Since we do not regard this as the appro- 
priate item for expressing the Assembly's 
views on the policy of apartheid or the repre- 
sentative nature of the Government of South 

Africa or other members who do not elect 
governments by universal, free elections, our 
vote against this report does not diminish 
our opposition to these unfortunate prac- 
tices. 1 

My delegation abstained on the resolution 
sending this matter to the Security Council. 
The preambular paragraphs contained state- 
ments of undeniable and tragic accuracy. As 
I said, the policy of apartheid we believe is 
illegal, immoral, and fundamentally repug- 
nant. It is the obligation of the United 
Nations to be concerned and to seek to take 
steps to eliminate such outrages. 

We are not convinced, however, that the 
Security Council is the appropriate forum 
for discussing such issues. For this reason 
we did not believe it appropriate to cast a 
positive vote. Since others wished to discuss 
this question in the Security Council — and 
we favor wherever legally possible the right 
of all members to state their views in the 
forum of their choice — we did not believe it 
appropriate for us to cast a negative vote. 
Since we were neither in a position to vote 
in favor nor of a mind to oppose, we have 

Of course our abstention is without preju- 
dice to the position my government will take 
in the Security Council when this matter is 
discussed there. 


The General Assembly, 

Recalling its resolutions 2636 A (XXV) of 13 
November 1970, 2862 (XXVI) of 20 December 1971 
and 2948 (XXVII) of 8 December 1972 and its deci- 
sion of 5 October 1973, by which it decided to reject 
the credentials of South Africa, 

Recalling that South Africa did not heed any of 
the aforementioned decisions and has continued to 

1 The Assembly on Sept. 30 adopted by a recorded 
vote of 98 to 23 (U.S.), with 14 abstentions, Resolu- 
tion 3206 (XXIX) approving the first report of the 
Credentials Committee (U.N. doc. A/9779), which 
included a recommendation not to accept the creden- 
tials of the representatives of South Africa. 

2 U.N. doc. A/RES/3207 (XXIX); adopted by the 
Assembly on Sept. 30 by a recorded vote of 125 to 1, 
with 9 abstentions (U.S.). 


Department of State Bulletin 

practise its policy of apartheid and racial discrim- 
ination against the majority of the population in 
South Africa, 

Reaffirming, once again, that the policy of apart- 
heid and racial discrimination of the Government 
of South Africa is a flagrant violation of the prin- 
ciples of the Charter of the United Nations and the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 

Noting the persistent refusal of South Africa to 
abandon its policy of apartheid and racial discrim- 
ination in compliance with relevant resolutions and 
decisions of the General Assembly, 

Calls upon the Security Council to review the 
relationship between the United Nations and South 
Africa in the light of the constant violation by South 
Africa of the principles of the Charter and the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

United Nations Documents: 
A Selected Bibliography 

Mimeographed or processed documents (such as 
those listed below) may be consulted at depository 
libraries in the United States. U.N. printed publica- 
tions may be purchased from the Sales Section of 
the United Nations, United Nations Plaza, N.Y. 

World Population Conference 

World Population Conference documents: 

Recent population trends and future prospects. 
Report of the Secretary General. E/CONF.60/3. 
97 pp. 

Population change and economic and social de- 
velopment. Report of the Secretary General. E/ 
CONF.60/4. 65 pp. 

Population, resources and the environment. Re- 
port of the Secretary General. E/CONF.60/5. 
92 pp. 

Population and the family. Report of the Secretary 
General. E/CONF.60/6. 78 pp. 
World Population Conference background papers: 

Report of the symposium on population and hu- 
man rights, Amsterdam, January 21-29, 1974. 
E/CONF.60/CBP/4. March 19, 1974. 45 pp. 

World population and food supplies: looking ahead. 
Prepared by Lester R. Brown, senior fellow, 
Overseas Development Council, Washington. E/ 
CONF.60/CBP/19. March 22, 1974. 20 pp. 

Research needed in the field of population. Pre- 
pared by the staff of the International Union 
for the Scientific Study of Population, Liege. 
E/CONF.60/CBP/28. April 3, 1974. 14 pp. 

Population and education. Prepared by the U.N. 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organiza- 
tion. E/CONF.60/CBP/20. April 12, 1974. 21 


Current Actions 



Protocol relating to an amendment to the convention 
on international civil aviation, as amended (TIAS 
1591, 3756, 5170, 7616). Done at Vienna July 7, 
1971. 1 

Ratifications deposited: Romania, September 6, 
1974; Tunisia, July 10, 1974. 


Strasbourg agreement concerning the international 
patent classification. Done at Strasbourg March 
24, 1971. 1 
Ratification deposited: Netherlands (applicable to 

Surinam and Netherlands Antilles) , September 

13, 1974. 


Convention for the protection of producers of pho- 
nograms against unauthorized duplication of their 
phonograms. Done at Geneva October 29, 1971. En- 
tered into force April 18, 1973; for the United 
States March 10, 1974. TIAS 7808. 
Notification from World Intellectual Property Or- 
ganization that ratification deposited: Monaco, 
September 2, 1974. 

United Nations Charter 

Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the 
International Court of Justice. Signed at San 
Francisco June 26, 1945. Entered into force Oc- 
tober 24, 1945. 59 Stat. 1031. 

Admission to membership: Bangladesh, Grenada, 
Guinea-Bissau, September 17, 1974. 


Protocol modifying and extending the wheat trade 
convention (part of the international wheat agree- 
ment) 1971. Done at Washington April 2, 1974. 
Entered into force June 19, 1974, with respect to 
certain provisions; July 1, 1974, with respect to 
other provisions. 

Accession deposited: Dominican Republic, Septem- 
ber 26, 1974. 


Convention providing a uniform law on the form of 
an international will, with annex. Done at Wash- 
ington October 26, 1973. 1 
Signature: United Kingdom, October 10, 1974. 

Not in force. 

October 28, 1974 




Agreement amending and extending the agreement 
of July 11, 19G9 (TIAS 6815), for cooperation 
concerning civil uses of atomic energy. Signed at 
gton June 14, 1974. 

concerning civil uses oi at 
Washington June 14, 1974. 
Entered into force: Octobe 

:tober 8, 1974. 


Agreement relating to payment to the United States 
of the net proceeds from the sale of defense arti- 
cles by Guatemala. Effected by exchange of notes 
at Guatemala September 20 and 27, 1974. Entered 
into force September 27, 1974, effective July 1, 


Convention for the avoidance of double taxation and 
the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to 
taxes on income, with related notes. Signed at 
Washington October 8, 1974. Enters into force 30 
days after the exchange of instruments of ratifi- 

Agreement on cooperation in the field of health. 
Signed at Washington October 8, 1974. Entered 
into force October 8, 1974. 

Agreement on funding of cooperation in science and 
technology. Signed at Washington October 8, 1974. 
Entered into force October 8, 1974. 

Joint statement on the development of agricultural 
trade. Signed at Washington October 8, 1974. En- 
tered into force October 8, 1974. 


The Senate on September 30 confirmed the follow- 
ing nominations: 

William D. Rogers to be an Assistant Secretary 
of State [for Inter- American Affairs]. 

Edward S. Little to be Ambassador to the Republic 
of Chad. 


George Bush as Chief, U.S. Liaison Office, the 
People's Republic of China, effective September 27. 

Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: October 7-13 

Press releases may be obtained from the Of- 
fice of Press Relations, Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 

Releases'issued prior to October 7 which ap- 
pear in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 
382 of September 27, 388 of October 1, and 
390 of October 3. 




Kissinger: news conference. 

U.S. National Committee for 
the CCIR Study Group 
CMTT, Oct. 31. 

Rogers sworn in as Assistant 
Secretary for Inter-American 
Affairs (biographic data). 

U.S. -Polish agreement on joint 
funding of scientific and 
technological cooperation. 

U.S. -Polish joint statement on 
agricultural trade. 

U.S. -Polish agreement on coal 

U.S. -Polish income tax conven- 

U.S. -Polish agreement on 

U.S. -Polish agreement on envi- 
ronmental protection. 

Kissinger: arrival statement, 

Claxton: conference on world 
population for nongovern- 
mental organizations. 

Shipping Coordinating Commit- 
tee, Subcommittee on Mari- 
time Law, Oct. 30. 

Shipping Coordinating Commit- 
tee, Nov. 12. 

Advisory Committee on the 
Law of the Sea, Nov. 4-8. 

Lord: Commonwealth Club of 
San Francisco, Oct. 11. 

Kissinger: remarks in Cairo, 
Oct. 10. 

Little sworn in as Ambassador 
to Chad (biographic data). 

Kissinger, Sadat: remarks af- 
ter meeting, Oct. 10. 

Kissinger: departure state- 
ment, Cairo. 

U.S. and Australia delegations 
discuss air navigation facility 

St. Paul Chamber Orchestra 
tours Eastern Europe. 

Cancellation of meeting of 
Book and Library Advisory 

Kissinger: departure state- 
ment, Damascus, Oct. 11. 

* Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the Bulletin. 














































Department of State Bulletin 

INDEX October 28, 197 % Vol. LXXI, No. 18U 

Africa. Department Discusses Decolonization 

of Portuguese African Territories (Easum) 586 

Atomic Energy. Secretary Kissinger's News 

Conference of October 7 565 

Aviation. U.S. and Jordan Sign Agreement on 

Nonscheduled Air Services 580 

Barbados. Letters of Credence (Williams) . . 573 

Chad. Little confirmed as Ambassador . . . 596 

Chile. Secretary Kissinger's News Conference 

of October 7 565 

China. Bush appointed Chief, U.S. Liaison Of- 
fice, People's Republic of China 596 


Confirmations (Little, Rogers) ...... 596 

Congressional Documents Relating to Foreign 
Policy 588 

Department Discusses Decolonization of Por- 
tuguese African Territories (Easum) . . . 586 

Food for Peace Report for 1973 Transmitted 

to Congress (message from President Ford) 587 

Costa Rica. Letters of Credence (Silva) . . . 573 

Cuba. Secretary Kissinger's News Conference 

of October 7 565 

Cyprus. Secretary Kissinger's News Confer- 
ence of October 7 565 

Department and Foreign Service 

Appointments (Bush) 596 

Confirmations (Little, Rogers) 596 

Economic Affairs 

Annual Meetings of IMF and IBRD Boards 
of Governors Held at Washington (Ford, 
Simon) 574 

Cooperative Actions To Solve Economic and 

Social Problems (Percy) 589 

Energy. Secretary Kissinger's News Confer- 
ence of October 7 565 

Foreign Aid 

Food for Peace Report for 1973 Transmitted 
to Congress (message from President Ford) 587 

Secretary Kissinger's News Conference of Oc- 
tober 7 565 

Ghana. Letters of Credence (Quarm) .... 573 

International Organizations and Conferences. 

Annual Meetings of IMF and IBRD Boards 
of Governors Held at Washington (Ford, 
Simon) 574 

Jordan. U.S. and Jordan Sign Agreement on 

Nonscheduled Air Services 580 

Latin America 

Rogers confirmed as Assistant Secretary for 

Inter-American Affairs 596 

Secretary Kissinger Hosts Luncheon for Latin 
American Foreign Ministers (Kissinger, Mo- 
lina) 583 

Mexico. President Ford's News Conference of 
October 9 (excerpts) 572 

Middle East 

Secretary Kissinger Hosts Dinner for Mem- 
bers of Arab League (Kissinger, Naff a') . 581 

Secretary Kissinger's News Conference of Oc- 
tober 7 565 

Namibia. United States Makes Contribution to 

U.N. Fund for Namibia 593 

Narcotics Control. U.S. Welcomes Turkish De- 
cision To Change Poppy-Harvesting Method 
(Department announcement) 588 

Poland. Secretary Kissinger's News Confer- 
ence of October 7 565 

Population. Cooperative Actions To Solve Eco- 
nomic and Social Problems (Percy) . . . 589 

Presidential Documents 

Annual Meetings of IMF and IBRD Boards 

of Governors Held at Washington .... 574 

Food for Peace Report for 1973 Transmitted 

to Congress 587 

President Ford's News Conference of October 

9 (excerpts) 572 

South Africa 

U.S. Explains Vote on Resolutions on South 
Africa (Scali, text of U.N. General Assem- 
bly resolution) 594 

Spain. Letters of Credence (Alba) 573 

Syria. Letters of Credence (Kabbani) . . . 573 

Treaty Information 

Current Actions 595 

U.S. and Jordan Sign Agreement on Nonsched- 
uled Air Services 580 

Turkey. U.S. Welcomes Turkish Decision To 
Change Poppy-Harvesting Method (Depart- 
ment announcement) 588 


President Ford's News Conference of October 

9 (excerpts) 572 

Secretary Kissinger's News Conference of Oc- 
tober 7 565 

United Nations 

Cooperative Actions To Solve Economic and 

Social Problems (Percy) 589 

United Nations Documents 595 

U.S. Explains Vote on Resolutions on South 
Africa (Scali, text of U.N. General Assem- 
bly resolution) 594 

United States Makes Contribution to U.N. 
Fund for Namibia 593 

Venezuela. Letters of Credence (Burelli-Rivas) 573 

Name Index 

Alba, Jaime 573 

Burelli-Rivas, Miguel Angel 573 

Bush, George 596 

Easum, Donald B 586 

Ford, President 572,574,587 

Kabbani, Sabah 573 

Kissinger, Secretary 565, 581, 583 

Little, Edward S 596 

Molina, Adolfo 583 

Naffa', Fu'ad 581 

Percy, Charles H 589 

Quarm, Samuel Ernest 573 

Rogers, William D 596 

Scali, John 594 

Silva, Rodolfo 573 

Simon, William E 574 

Williams, Cecil B 573 

Superintendent of Documents 
us. government printing office 




Special Fourth-Clati Rate 



R 1 


Subscription Renewals: To insure uninterrupted 
service, please renew your subscription promptly 
when you receive the expiration notice from the 
Superintendent of Documents. Due to the time re- 
quired to process renewals, notices are sent out 3 
months in advance of the expiration date. Any prob- 
lems involving your subscription will receive im- 
mediate attention if you write to: Director, Office 
of Media Services (PA/MS), Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 

?2 7. 



Volume LXXI 

No. 1845 

November 4, 1974 



Remarks by President Ford and First Secretary Gierek 

and Texts of Joint Statements and Joint Communique 597 



Address by Winston Lord 

Director of the Policy Planning Staff 617 





For index see inside back cover 





For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


52 issues plus semiannual Indexes, 

domestic $29.80, foreign $37.25 

Single copy 60 centa 

Use of funds for printing this publication 

approved by the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (January 29, 1971). 

Note: Contents of this publication ape not 

copyrighted and items contained herein may be 

reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 

appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 

the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 

Vol. LXXI, No. 1845 
November 4, 1974 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, provides the public and 
interested agencies of the government 
with information on developments in 
the field of U.S. foreign relations and 
on the work of the Department and 
the Foreign Service. 
The BULLETIN includes selected 
press releases on foreign policy, issued 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements, addresses, 
and news conferences of the President 
and the Secretary of State and other 
officers of the Department, as well as 
special articles on various phases of 
international affairs and the functions 
of the Department. Information is 
included concerning treaties and inter- 
national agreements to which the 
United States is or may become a 
party and on treaties of general inter- 
national interest. 

Publications of the Department of 
State, United Nations documents, and 
legislative material in the field of 
international relations are also listed. 

First Secretary Gierek of the Polish United Workers' Party 
Visits the United States 

Edward Gierek, First Secretary of the 
Central Committee of the Polish United 
Workers' Party, made an official visit to the 
United States October 6-13. He met with 
President Ford and other government offi- 
cials in Washington October 8-10. Following 
are an exchange of greetings between Presi- 
dent Ford and First Secretary Gierek at a 
welcoming ceremony at the White House on 
October 8, their exchange of toasts at a 
White House dinner that evening, and their 
remarks on October 9 upon signing a joint 
statement on principles of relations and a 
joint statement on economic, industrial, and 
technological cooperation, together with the 
texts of the joint statements and a joint com- 
munique issued on October 13. 


Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents dated October 14 

President Ford 

Mr. First Secretary: It is a very distinct 
pleasure for me to welcome you and Mrs. 
Gierek to the United States. As you know, 
Mr. First Secretary, the family ties that bind 
our two peoples together in a very special 
way are very, very old, indeed, older actually 
than the United States itself. 

You have already visited Jamestown, Vir- 
ginia, where the first Poles arrived in 1608, 
only one year after it was first settled. From 
that day to this day, large numbers of your 
countrymen have helped to build this country 
and to mold our great American traditions. 

America treasures these contributions to 
our growth, to our culture, and to our his- 
tory. During your stay in this country, Mr. 
First Secretary, you and Mrs. Gierek will be 
able to see for yourselves the character of 

our country and the role that men and women 
from Poland have played in America's his- 

Our two nations have thus a fine founda- 
tion upon which to build. I have watched 
with very great interest the substantial 
growth of our bilateral trade in the last two 
years since the establishment of the joint 
Polish-American Trade Commission. And 
continuing expansion of contacts between of- 
ficials and private citizens in the fields of 
such activities as science, technology, and 
the arts is another evidence of the dynamic 
development of Polish-American relations. 

You, Mr. First Secretary, will surely agree 
with me that we must not allow our satisfac- 
tion with past progress to slow our pace or 
slacken our efforts in the future. We must 
use the opportunity your visit affords to seek 
new avenues of bilateral cooperation in 
many, many fields, including energy and en- 
vironmental areas. 

In many other areas of common interest — 
for example, our participation in the Confer- 
ence on Security and Cooperation in Europe 
and our participation in the force reduction 
talks — we are engaged in common endeavors 
for peace. 

Today, economic problems almost every- 
where are very, very severe. That stability 
of the world is in danger, and almost every- 
where it develops, as well as in developing 
countries, the welfare of people on a global 
basis unfortunately is actually threatened. 

Mr. First Secretary, Poland knows too 
well, perhaps better than any other nation, 
the fearful experience of war and its very 
painful consequences. A thorough review of 
all the dangers to peace for ourselves and 
the world must surely be a matter of highest 

November 4, 1974 


We seek a peaceful world and a more pros- 
perous world. Poland is a world leader in 
coal production and coal research. Poland 
has a very major role, a role to play in con- 
tributing solutions to the world energy prob- 
lem; and you, Mr. First Secretary, with a 
lifetime of expertise, are able to make a very 
important personal contribution in this spe- 
cific area. I look forward to exchanging views 
with you on the energy problem. 

Mr. First Secretary, we, all of us in Amer- 
ica, are pleased that you and Mrs. Gierek are 
here. I am very confident, Mr. First Secre- 
tary, that our meetings will deepen the 
friendship of our two peoples and broaden 
the cooperation of our two nations. 

Thank you very much. 

First Secretary Gierek * 

I wish to thank you for your words of cor- 
diality which you, Mr. President, have ad- 
dressed to me, to Mrs. Gierek, and to mem- 
bers of my delegation. I take these words of 
yours as being directed to the people of Po- 
land and to the Polish state, on behalf of 
which and upon your invitation I am visiting 
the United States. 

I am pleased to have made this visit, as it 
adds new testimony to the friendly ties that 
have linked our two nations since the times 
of George Washington and Tadeusz Kos- 

I rest assured that it is the desire of both 
our peoples not only to preserve these tradi- 
tional relations but also to strengthen them 
through closer and broader cooperation in 
the world of today. 

Indeed, Socialist Poland, dynamically de- 
veloping her new potential and creating as 
she does new living conditions for her peo- 
ple, is vitally interested in this. I trust that 
the talks we shall hold and agreements we 
shall conclude will greatly contribute toward 
this end, that they will open up a broader 
prospect for cooperation between our coun- 

I am pleased to have made this visit, also, 

1 First Secretary Gierek spoke in Polish on all three 

because it represents yet another reaffirma- 
tion of international detente, which my coun- 
try views as extremely significant and to 
which we try to make our utmost contribu- 

That process, which originates from the 
very essence of the contemporary world, from 
the need for and necessity of peaceful coex- 
istence among states with differing political 
systems, has been considerably enhanced in 
recent years. 

We of Poland can only welcome it in our 
profound conviction that it is in the interest 
of all nations to make that process further 
extend, universal and irreversible. Precisely 
for this reason there is wide appreciation to- 
day that it is you, Mr. President, who is 
steering the U.S. policy toward this direc- 

I am pleased to have made this visit, as it 
will enable me to get to know the United 
States, to acquaint myself with the outstand- 
ing accomplishments of the progress of civi- 
lization of the American people, whose his- 
tory and achievements have since the very 
outset been and continue to be so much en- 
riched by the Americans of Polish extrac- 

Mr. President, I am profoundly convinced 
of the propitious conditions today and the 
right time for expansion of Polish-American 
cooperation in its new dimensions and in all 
fields of endeavor. 

Mine is also a firm belief that we can work 
closer together for the great cause of peace. 
That is the purpose of my visit here, and I 
am happy that you, too, share these aspira- 
tions of ours. 

Please accept, Mr. President, the best 
wishes from Poland to the United States, 
from the Polish people to the American peo- 


Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents dated October 14 

President Ford 

Mr. First Secretary, our wonderful guests : 
It is a great privilege and pleasure to have 
you and Mrs. Gierek here with us this eve- 


Department of State Bulletin 

ning. We have had a very delightful dinner, 
and we had a very helpful and constructive 
discussion during the day, and I am looking 
forward to further discussions tomorrow. 

Mr. First Secretary, I come from a part of 
our country where we have roughly 30,000 
people with a Polish heritage or background. 
And as I grew up, Mr. First Secretary, I had 
many wonderful personal experiences with 
families that had a Polish background, fam- 
ilies that had the same great family strength, 
families that had a tremendous religious ded- 
ication, individuals with a Polish heritage 
that became leaders in our community, out- 
standing scholars, athletes, public servants. 
And so I had a great exposure to the finest, 
the best, with individuals who had come 
from your country to ours. 

And then in 1958 or '59, I had the oppor- 
tunity to go to Poland, and I wondered as I 
went to Poland whether there would be so 
many comparable wonderful people in Poland 
as I had known in my hometown in Michigan 
in the United States. 

And I found, Mr. First Secretary, that in- 
stead of 30,000, there were 30 million. And 
all of them had the same warmth, friendship, 
family dedication, deep conviction, and all of 
them wanted to uplift their community, their 
state, and make their country a better and 
finer place in which to live. 

So it seemed to me, Mr. First Secretary, 
that it was very easy for Poland and our 
country to start building a foundation some 
years ago which has now developed into a 
great relationship, a relationship predicated 
on understanding, a relationship that has a 
far broader vision. 

We want to help one another, and we do. 
But we want to build from our relationship a 
broader effort to improve world relations be- 
tween countries that did not understand one 
another but who now, hopefully, will — blocs 
that did not understand one another but, 
hopefully, will. And the net result is that be- 
cause of our citizens who came from Po- 
land, settled here, and have become so strong 
and vital in our society and yours, who are 
so strong and so vital in Europe, I hope and 
trust that we can move together in coopera- 

tion and economic matters, cultural matters, 
educational matters, environmental matters, 
and set an example for all nations, because 
we do understand one another and we can, 
by history, work together. 

And so I ask all of our guests here tonight 
to rise and join with me in offering a toast 
to the First Secretary and to Mrs. Gierek 
and offer them the best from all of us in the 
United States to the First Secretary, to the 
Polish people. 

First Secretary Gierek 

Dear Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen : 
I thank you, Mr. President, for your kind 
and friendly words. I thank you for the hos- 
pitality you have shown us, which both Mrs. 
Gierek and I greatly appreciate and sincerely 
hope to heartily reciprocate. 

From the outset of our sojourn on the 
American soil, we have been accompanied by 
a good, matter-of-fact, and friendly atmos- 
phere. This gladdens us and reaffirms in our 
profound conviction that my visit here will 
prove fruitful. 

Our conversations with you, Mr. President, 
have above all reassured me in this. We have 
exchanged, in their course, views on the most 
important issues of Polish-American rela- 
tions and on the further development of the 
process of international detente. 

We have reached important conclusions 
which will be set down on our joint docu- 
ments. I am confident that the results of our 
meetings will open up a new stage in the mu- 
tual relations between both our countries 
and nations. 

I highly value, Mr. President, this direct 
contact with you, with the leader of the 
United States, who by his own deep under- 
standing of and positive approach to issues 
of the present-day cooperation between our 
two nations confirms the willingness to de- 
velop it further in the friendly attitude to- 
ward Poland. 

I am also satisfied over my meetings with 
the Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger, 
and with all eminent associates of yours. 

It is my conviction, Mr. President, that 

November 4, 1974 


there exist very favorable conditions to a 
significant expansion of Polish-U.S. coopera- 
tion, which is the common concern of ours. 
These conditions, as you have pointed out a 
moment ago, stem from our longstanding tra- 
dition of friendly mutual bonds, dating back 
to the times of the founding of the United 
States, began by the participation of Tadeusz 
Kosciuszko, Pulaski, and other sons of the 
Polish people who struggled for the independ- 
ence of the United States. 

These bonds were subsequently strength- 
ened by the sympathy toward and interest of 
the democratic forces of the American nation 
in the cause of Polish independence. And 
they were amply reaffirmed in our joint 
struggle for freedom, greatest in history, as 
it were, conducted by the great anti-Fascist 
coalition in the years of World War II. 

These traditions have remained alive, al- 
though their early postwar phase has fortu- 
nately become a closed historical chapter. 

As a result of its own heroic struggle and 
its cooperation with all other freedom-loving 
forces, the people of Poland found its road 
to durable independence, to enviable secu- 
rity, to dynamic development. 

The people of Poland found it in its new 
Socialist homeland, in its consciously chosen 
alliance with the U.S.S.R. and other Socialist 
countries, in its active foreign policy of in- 
ternational security and peaceful coopera- 

Modern Poland, Mr. President, with a 
more than 1,000-year history and great tra- 
ditions of love for freedom and progress, is 
proud of the great historic achievements of 
the past three decades which have essentially 
altered the course of our nation's tragic past 
and verily transformed the country, elevat- 
ing it onto a new place in Europe and the 
world at large. 

The Poland of today, one of the world's 
top 10 industrial producers, is a country of a 
dynamic economy, of high cultural and scien- 
tific standards, and constantly growing stand- 
ards of living. 

In recent years we have endowed her de- 
velopment with a still greater dynamism and 
higher quality. We still have much to accom- 

plish. But the decisive stage is behind us and 
Poland could now enter the phase of accel- 
erated growth of her economy. And the as- 
pirations of my people are indeed in keeping 
with these vital needs and aspirations of all. 

It is from this position and for this pur- 
pose that we also desire to eject new impetus 
and quality to our cooperation with other 
countries of the world. We are delighted to 
see considerable progress achieved in Polish- 
American relations, particularly in recent 
years. But we take it only as a harbinger of a 
much broader cooperation. 

We therefore attach special importance to 
development of economic cooperation, which 
establishes most durable of bonds and pro- 
vides for a material base of cooperation in 
all other fields. 

We conceive of the United States as one of 
our principal partners in the West. There 
exist all opportunities that it be so. The es- 
sential thing is to create conditions that 
would make us seize of all those opportuni- 

I strongly believe that arrangements we 
are now adopting and agreements we are 
concluding will be a decisive contribution to- 
ward this end. 

In the overall framework of relations be- 
tween our two countries, a major positive 
role can no doubt be played by the multimil- 
lion-strong group of Americans of Polish an- 
cestry as good citizens of the United States 
and at the same time retaining their emo- 
tional ties with their old land. They have al- 
ways been one of the important factors of 
mutual rapprochement between our two na- 
tions, and they can further make a substan- 
tial contribution to their friendly coopera- 

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, our 
thoughts constantly turn to the great and 
common cause of all mankind, the cause of 

The Polish nation, which paid the highest 
price for its freedom and is fully cognizant 
of the value of peace, attaches great impor- 
tance to the process of detente, which has 
been developing in recent years. We see in it 
a true road toward the strengthening of in- 


Department of State Bulletin 

ternational security and development of co- 
operation among nations on the basis of 
peaceful coexistence of states with different 
political systems. This is the prime need and 
necessity of our time. 

Let me say, Mr. President, that Poland 
fully appreciates the far-reaching and all- 
round significance of Soviet-American agree- 
ments for the cause of world peace and gen- 
eral improvement of international relations. 

It was with greatest satisfaction that we 
welcomed progress already achieved here, 
and together with other countries we have 
noted with great appreciation the promise 
that these propitious trends will be contin- 

It is only natural that Poland should at- 
tach particular significance to progress of 
detente and to consolidation of the facts of 
nearly three decades of peace in Europe. We 
have been actively cooperating to insure the 
success of the Conference on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe. We believe that there 
exist very realistic conditions for its success- 
ful conclusion in the months to come. 

We shall continue to make our constructive 
contribution to the Vienna talks on troops 
and arms reduction in Central Europe. 

We are convinced that the United States 
is also vitally interested in a lasting peace on 
our continent and can indeed make a substan- 
tial and constructive contribution to that 
cause. We rest assured of the indivisibility 
of and the universal need for peace and of 
the desire common to all nations for security, 
justice, and a better morale. 

I trust that also in the strivings to achieve 
these great objectives closer cooperation be- 
tween both our countries is possible and nec- 

My first day in Washington and, above all, 
the talks I had with you, Mr. President, reaf- 
firm me in my conviction that together we 
can open up new, broader prospects for the 
development of Polish-U.S. cooperation. I am 
reassured in this also by the good climate in 
which all our meetings are held and which is 
typical of the friendly relations obtaining 
between our two peoples. 

Mr. President, I should like to propose a 

toast: To your very good health and all suc- 
cess in steering the affairs of the great 
United States; for the speediest recovery of 
Mrs. Ford; to your good health, ladies and 
gentlemen; to the development of friendly 
cooperation between our peoples and states; 
to world peace. 


Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents dated October 14 

President Ford 

Mr. First Secretary: We have just put our 
signatures on landmark documents. 

The first, on principles of bilateral rela- 
tions, recognizes the friendly state of those 
relations. It underlines our joint determina- 
tion to not only continue this cooperation but 
to further expand it for mutual benefit. We 
will make a joint contribution to peace and 
security throughout the world. 

The second document is more specifically 
directed to economic, industrial, and techno- 
logical cooperation. If it is to succeed, coop- 
eration requires the careful and continuing 
attention of nations, as I am sure you will 

Over the past few years we have made im- 
portant advances in our economic and trade 
relations. We have now pledged our coun- 
tries to even further advances toward reali- 
zation of the full potential for cooperation 
that we both see and we desire. Our peoples 
will benefit and the economic international 
community will likewise benefit. 

These documents should be reassuring to 
our friends and associates throughout the 
world. We discriminate against no one, nor 
do we prejudice any commitments we have 
already made to others. Indeed, the respect 
we show for each other and the cooperation 
that we seek is part of the international 
spirit we see emerging. This new spirit seeks 
to solve problems, not to make new tensions. 

Mr. First Secretary, my signature on these 
documents is yet another expression of the 
deep interest of the people of the United 
States in the well-being of your nation and 


November 4, 1974 


its deserved place in the international com- 
munity. We welcome these documents for the 
contributions they will make to the spirit of 
cooperation and peaceful endeavor through- 
out the world. 

First Secretary Gierek 

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen: I do 
share, Mr. President, your appraisal of the 
weight of the documents we have just signed, 
the fruitful nature of our talks, and the im- 
portance of the agreements we have con- 
cluded. I greatly appreciate what you have 
said and wish to express my profound satis- 
faction over the headway we made and re- 
sults we achieved during my visit to Wash- 
ington. I especially enjoyed meeting with 
you, Mr. President, which I shall cherish in 
my memories as an important, sincere, and 
friendly encounter. 

We are opening together a new chapter in 
relations between the Polish People's Repub- 
lic and the United States of America. As of 
now, these new annals will be recording the 
future of our relations as well as our broader, 
closer, and more extensive cooperation. We 
are opening that new chapter aware of the 
entire tradition of the friendly mutual rela- 
tions between the Polish and American peo- 
ples, in the desire of tightening the bonds 
which we have inherited from the past and 
continue to maintain at present. 

In enhancing the progress made in our bi- 
lateral relations in recent years, we are like- 
wise creating a groundwork for expanded 
economic, scientific, and technical coopera- 
tion, for cultural exchanges and various con- 
tacts between our respective peoples. Partic- 
ularly important in this regard is expansion 
of reciprocally beneficial economic ties, which 
form the most durable basis for all other 
mutual relationships. 

I firmly believe that the inauguration of a 
future-oriented phase of Polish-American re- 
lations concurs with the interests and wishes 
of our two peoples. We are doing it in ac- 
cordance both with the principles and the 
spirit of peaceful coexistence among states 
with different systems. For the United States 


and modern Socialist Poland are precisely 
such states. Poland for 30 years has been 
shaping new conditions of life and develop- 
ment of her people. She remains faithful to 
her alliances, and in the best of her tradi- 
tion, she is actively involved in the strife for 
progress and peace. 

I trust, Mr. President, that the results of 
our meeting will also contribute to the 
strengthening of international detente. This 
latter process, in particular fortified by the 
improvement of Soviet-American relations, 
which are of exceptional significance to world 
peace, has already brought about many favor- 
able changes in the international situation. It 
has reduced dangerous tensions and provided 
new vistas for constructive cooperation. 

We can particularly sense this in Europe, 
where the process has been advanced most. 
Yet, even there, a great deal still remains to 
be done in order to insure peace for the en- 
tire future to come. May we all move fur- 
ther along that road, to free mankind com- 
pletely from the nuclear threat, to give the 
world of today and all its nations a feeling 
of lasting security, and to resolve success- 
fully the great socioeconomic and civilization 
problems which confront us now and are 
likely to emerge in near future. 

I am happy, Mr. President, that, as has 
been reflected in our joint statement, we are 
in agreement as to the need for further action 
at making irreversible the progress achieved 
in peaceful relations among states with dif- 
ferent socioeconomic systems. 

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, to- 
morrow morning I shall be leaving Washing- 
ton to visit other centers of your great and 
beautiful country. 

On behalf of Mrs. Gierek and persons ac- 
companying me, as well as in my own name, 
I wish to thank you, Mr. President, for the 
friendly reception and hospitality accorded 
to us. 

Permit me at the same time to reiterate my 
very cordial invitation for you and Mrs. 
Ford, whom we wish a very speedy recovery, 
to pay a visit to Poland. With the fresh mem- 
ories of our Washington encounter, I shall 
be looking forward to meeting you again, 

Department of State Bulletin 


this time in our capital, the city of Warsaw. 

I should also like to say once more how 
happy I was to have met the prominent rep- 
resentatives of the U.S. Congress. My meet- 
ing with them has reaffirmed me of the con- 
gressional favorable attitude toward matters 
concerning further development of Polish- 
American cooperation. 

I take this opportunity to thank the Sec- 
retary of State, as well as your other col- 
laborators, for their contribution to the fruit- 
ful results of my visit to Washington. I thank 
all who helped make this visit a success. 

Through you, Mr. President, I wish to con- 
vey to the American nation my heartfelt 
greetings and best wishes which I am bring- 
ing from the people of Poland. 

President Ford 

Thank you very, very much, Mr. First Sec- 
retary. I have enjoyed meeting you, becoming 
well acquainted with you, and I look forward 
to the opportunity of visiting Poland. 

I told Mrs. Ford on the telephone today of 
your kind invitation, and she remembers viv- 
idly our visit to Poland some years ago. She, 
as well as I, are looking forward to a return 
to your nation and to meet again the wonder- 
ful Polish people. 

I can assure you, Mr. First Secretary, that 
as you travel around the, rest of the United 
States — and I wish you could stay longer 
and visit more places — that you will find a 
great warmth on the part of the American 
people for the people of Poland and you will 
be welcome wherever you go. I know the 
warmth of the welcome here will be equal 
wherever you visit in our country. 

We hope you will come back. I look forward 
to seeing you in the future. 

First Secretary Gierek 

I wish to thank you most heartily, Mr. 
President, and we are expecting you in War- 
saw, and Mrs. Ford. We shall be trying to 
greet you, Mr. President and Mrs. Ford, ac- 
cording to the Polish tradition and our say- 
ing, "My home is your home." 

President Ford: Thank you, sir. 


Joint Statement on Principles 
of United States-Polish Relations 

The President of the United States of America, 
Gerald R. Ford, and the First Secretary of the Cen- 
tral Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party, 
Edward Gierek, 

— having met in a cordial, businesslike and con- 
structive atmosphere, which provided the opportu- 
nity for a useful and comprehensive exchange of 

— mindful of the long-standing and rich traditions 
of relations between their two peoples and the feel- 
ings of friendship and respect toward each other, 

— being convinced that further development of 
American-Polish relations and the expansion of mu- 
tual cooperation serves the interests of both nations 
and contributes to peace and security in the world, 

agreed on a statement of principles of friendly re- 
lations and cooperation between the United States of 
America and the Polish People's Republic. 

The President and the First Secretary reaffirmed 
that bilateral relations between the United States of 
America and the Polish People's Republic are found- 
ed on the purposes and principles of the United Na- 
tions Charter and international law, and in partic- 
ular the following interrelated principles: 

— sovereign equality; 

— refraining from the threat or use of force ; 

— inviolability of frontiers; 

— territorial integrity of states; 

— peaceful settlement of disputes; 

— non-intervention in internal affairs; 

— respect for human rights and fundamental free- 

— equal rights and self-determination of peoples; 

— cooperation among states; 

— fulfillment in good faith of obligations under in- 
ternational law. 


The President and the First Secretary expressed 
their determination to develop relations of the two 
countries in a spirit of cooperation and mutual re- 

They resolved to expand and encourage as appro- 
priate the long-range development of commercial, 
economic, cultural, scientific and technical coopera- 
tion of the two countries under conditions of reci- 
procity of advantages and obligations, in particular 
in agriculture, industry, transportation, health and 

They also resolved to continue to support the de- 
velopment of cooperation through the Joint Ameri- 
can-Polish Trade Commission, between organizations, 
institutions and firms, as set forth in the "Joint 


November 4, 1974 


Statement on the Expansion of Economic, Industrial 
and Technological Cooperation between the United 
States of America and the Polish People's Republic" 
signed on October 9, 1974. They affirmed that mu- 
tually beneficial economic relations are conducive to 
good political relations. 

They will facilitate and support, through all ap- 
propriate means, agreements concerning exchange of 
experts, students, and other persons as well as ex- 
changes in the fields of science, culture, the arts, ed- 
ucation, and other fields, between their two govern- 
ments or directly between research organizations, in- 
stitutions and firms as well as people. 

Being aware of the importance of cultural and sci- 
entific cooperation as a means of promoting mutual 
understanding and trust, they resolve to promote 
the development of cultural relations providing op- 
portunities for the citizens of both nations to learn 
the language of each other and to acquire a better 
knowledge of their respective achievements and val- 

They will support the expansion of contacts be- 
tween citizens of the two countries, including tour- 
ism, as well as contacts between representatives of 
federal and local authorities and youth and vocational 

They reaffirmed their commitment to develop fur- 
ther relations between the two countries through 
frequent consultations at various levels, on matters 
pertaining to their mutual relations, including imple- 
mentation of the principles contained herein, as well 
as important international issues of mutual interest. 


The President and the First Secretary welcomed 
the progress in recent years toward the general re- 
laxation of tension and the development of peaceful 
relations between countries of different socio-eco- 
nomic systems. In this connection they stressed the 
importance of making that progress irreversible. 
They are determined to continue efforts aimed at 
strengthening these positive changes to which all 
countries, irrespective of their size and potential, can 
and should contribute in the interest of peace and 
security of all nations. 

They will continue to work toward strengthening 
European security, in particular by contributing to 
the success of the Conference on Security and Coop- 
eration in Europe and the negotiations on Mutual 
Reduction of Forces and Armaments and Associated 
Measures in Central Europe. 

They stressed the importance of achieving effective 
measures of disarmament conducive to strengthening 
peace and security in the world. 

They expressed their willingness to cooperate on 
various international matters concerning the consoli- 
dation of peace, international security and economic, 
social and cultural progress, with a view to making 
their own contribution to the settlement of important 
international problems in the spirit of good will and 
mutual trust. 

They recognized the necessity of strengthening the 
effectiveness of the United Nations in the mainte- 
nance and consolidation of international peace, and 
in developing cooperation among all nations on the 
basis of the United Nations Charter. 

They acknowledged that this Joint Statement does 
not infringe upon the obligations of the United 
States of America and the Polish People's Republic 
with respect to other states. 

Washington, October 9, 1974 

For the United States For the Polish People's 
of America: Republic: 

Gerald R. Ford 

President of the 

United States of 


Edward Gierek 

First Secretary of the 

Central Committee of the 

Polish United Workers' Party 


Joint Statement on the Development of Eco- 
nomic, Industrial and Technological Coopera- 
tion Between the United States op America 
and the Polish People's Republic 

The President of the United States of America, 
Gerald R. Ford, and the First Secretary of the Cen- 
tral Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party, 
Edward Gierek, 

— having held talks on the present state and fur- 
ther development of economic, industrial and techno- 
logical cooperation between the United States of 
America and the Polish People's Republic, 

agreed on the following statement: 


The President and the First Secretary expressed 
gratification with the results achieved in their mu- 
tual economic and trade relations in recent years. 
They endorsed the guidelines for their further de- 
velopment that are set forth in this Joint Statement, 
and affirmed the positive role of these guidelines for 
the further development of mutual economic, indus- 
trial, and technological cooperation between the 
United States of America and the Polish People's 

Recognizing further growth of international trade 
as fundamental to economic development and im- 
proved standards of living, and guided by the provi- 
sions contained in the Joint Statement on Principles 
of United States-Polish Relations, they reaffirmed 
their determination to seek continued expansion of 
economic and trade relations pursuant to a liberal ex- 
port and import policy consistent with the legal re- 
quirements of each country and with the principles 
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, in- 
cluding most-favored-nation treatment. They also ex- 


Department of State Bulletin 

pressed confidence that their two countries' bilateral 
trade relations would be strengthened by the partici- 
pation of their countries in the multilateral trade ne- 

They recognize the existence of favorable pros- 
pects for further rapid development of bilateral 
trade in the coming years. They anticipate that their 
trade may reach $1 billion in 1976 and grow to $2 
billion by 1980. They will seek to ensure the existence 
of proper conditions for economic relations in order 
that these goals may be achieved. Fields offering par- 
ticular opportunities for the development of their 
economic relations include various light industries, 
food-processing, chemical and petrochemical indus- 
try, construction and transportation equipment, ma- 
chinery, electronic and electrical equipment indus- 
tries, coal mining and utilization and nonferrous 


Considering industrial cooperation as a particu- 
larly important factor in the development of trade 
and the diversification of its structure, the President 
and the First Secretary will facilitate cooperation be- 
tween American firms and Polish enterprises and eco- 
nomic organizations consistent with applicable laws 
and regulations of each of the two countries, includ- 
ing long-term understandings in production; con- 
struction of new industrial facilities, as well as ex- 
pansion and modernization of existing facilities; 
technological cooperation and research including ex- 
changes of know-how, licenses and patents; training 
and exchange of technicians and specialists; organi- 
zation of exhibits and conferences; and market and 
management research; in both countries and in third 

They affirmed that favorable consideration should 
also be given to new forms and methods of industrial 
cooperation suggested by interested firms and orga- 
nizations. With a view to the development of eco- 
nomic cooperation, they will examine ways and means 
for the application of customs and fiscal facilitation 
for goods assigned to, and resulting from, coopera- 
tion projects within the provisions of customs legis- 
lation in force in the two. countries. 


Positively evaluating the development to date of 
scientific and technological cooperation between the 
United States and Poland, including cooperative proj- 
ects undertaken in accordance with the United 
States-Polish Agreement on Science and Technology, 
the President and the First Secretary expressed the 
view that further cooperation of this kind in fields 
of interest to both countries should be pursued. 

With a view toward the facilitation of projects for 
industrial and agricultural development, they, by mu- 
tual agreement, will exchange information concern- 
ing various fields in which the expansion of indus- 
trial and technological cooperation is desirable, and, 
on the basis of such exchange, will examine areas 
appropriate for consideration. 

They positively evaluated the development to date 
of mutual financial and credit relations, especially 
the cooperation between the Export-Import Bank of 
the United States and the Bank Handlowy in War- 
saw, which contributed to the rapid rise of trade and 
economic cooperation, and pledged continued coop- 
eration in the development of these relations. 

Attaching great meaning to the progress achieved 
in creating reciprocal trade facilities, they will ex- 
amine ways of resolving administrative, tax, visa, 
and customs problems which may arise, and will fa- 
cilitate as appropriate access to information concern- 
ing actual and potential markets, operation of busi- 
ness offices, trade promotion and other endeavors 
which contribute to the development of trade and 
economic cooperation. 

Evaluating positively the work to date of the Joint 
American-Polish Trade Commission in developing 
and coordinating action in the area of mutual eco- 
nomic and trade relations, they will continue to work 
through the Commission to promote economic coop- 
eration and resolve problems arising in the course of 
their economic, industrial and technological coopera- 

In issuing this Joint Statement, they express the 
hope that it will become an important practical con- 
tribution to utilization of the potential for develop- 
ment of economic, industrial, and scientific and tech- 
nological cooperation between the United States of 
America and the Polish People's Republic. 

Washington, October 9, 1974 

For the United States For the Polish People's 
of America: Republic: 

Gerald R. Ford 

President of the 

United States of 


Edward Gierek 

First Secretary of the 

Central Committee of the 

Polish United Workers' Party 


White House press release dated October 12; for release October 13 

At the invitation of the President of the United 
States of America, Gerald R. Ford, and Mrs. Ford, 
the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the 
Polish United Workers' Party, Edward Gierek, and 
Mrs. Gierek, paid an official visit to the United States 
October 8 through 13, 1974. 

The First Secretary was accompanied by: Mie- 
czyslaw Jagielski, Deputy Chairman of the Council 
of Ministers, and Mrs. Jagielski; Stefan Olszowski, 
Foreign Minister, and Mrs. Olszowski; Ryszard Fre- 
lek, Member of the Secretariat of the Central Com- 
mittee of the Polish United Workers' Party; Witold 
Trampczynski, Polish Ambassador to the United 
States of America. 

The First Secretary was also accompanied by a 
group of advisers and experts. 

November 4, 1974 


The official party also visited New York, Pitts- 
burgh, and Houston. 

During his stay in Washington, First Secretary 
Gierek held talks with President Ford on the devel- 
opment of relations between Poland and the United 
States as well as on international issues. 

He also met with Secretary of State and Assistant 
to the President for National Security Affairs Henry 
A. Kissinger, Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, 
Secretary of Commerce Frederick Dent, Secretary of 
Health, Education and Welfare Caspar Weinberger, 
and Chairman of the Export-Import Bank William 

The First Secretary paid a visit to Congress and 
met with members of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives. He also had talks with leading 
American businessmen and bankers. 

Talks were also held between Foreign Minister 
Olszowski and Secretary of State Kissinger. 

The talks and meetings were held in a friendly and 
businesslike atmosphere and were characterized by a 
mutual desire to expand and strengthen the relations 
between Poland and the United States. 

In the course of the talks, the President and the 
First Secretary noted with satisfaction the signifi- 
cant progress which has recently been made in Po- 
lish-American relations. Both leaders expressed their 
desire to further develop these relations, which are 
based on the long-standing traditions of friendship 
and sympathy existing between the Polish and Amer- 
ican peoples. 

They agreed that the "Joint Statement on Princi- 
ples of U.S.-Polish Relations" signed during the visit 
provides a firm basis for broad cooperation between 
the two countries and contributes to the process of 
strengthening world peace, security, and interna- 
tional cooperation. 

The President and the First Secretary also at- 
tached importance to the "Joint Statement on the 
Development of Economic, Industrial and Techno- 
logical Cooperation between the United States of 
America and the Polish People's Republic," which 
they signed. They agreed that the main directions 
and scope of cooperation stipulated in the field of 
trade, industrial and technological cooperation should 
contribute to the further advancement of bilateral 
economic relations. 

The President and the First Secretary noted with 
satisfaction the rapid growth of trade between the 
United States and Poland in the past two years, ac- 
companied by a substantial intensification of general 
economic relations between the two countries. They 
considered a mutual trade turnover of one billion 
dollars by 1976 and two billion dollars by 1980 to be 
a realistic and desirable goal. 

They also agreed that the provisions contained in 

the "Joint Statement on the Development of Agri- 
cultural Trade between the United States of America 
and the Polish People's Republic" create possibilities 
for a further expansion of trade in food and agricul- 
tural products as well as for cooperation in various 
sectors of the agricultural economy. 

They noted that the Joint American-Polish Trade 
Commission plays an important role in the develop- 
ment of trade and economic cooperation. 

President Ford and First Secretary Gierek ex- 
pressed their deep satisfaction at the conclusion dur- 
ing the visit of agreements in the fields of: Coal re- 
search; Health; Environmental Protection; Coopera- 
tion in Science and Technology; and Avoidance of 
Double Taxation. 

They also welcome the conclusion of an agreement 
on the establishment of working relationships be- 
tween the U.S. and Polish Chambers of Commerce. 

Both leaders stressed the significance of the broad 
development of cultural and scientific cooperation be- 
tween the United States and Poland and expressed 
their conviction that this cooperation should be fur- 
ther developed. 

The President and the First Secretary emphasized 
the importance of historical traditions in strengthen- 
ing the bonds of sympathy and friendship between 
the United States and Poland. A positive role in this 
strengthening of mutual relations has been played by 
American citizens of Polish descent. Both leaders 
undertook to encourage and support further develop- 
ment of those and other contacts between the Amer- 
ican and Polish people. 

The President and the First Secretary conducted a 
broad and useful exchange of views on the most im- 
portant international issues with special emphasis 
on European questions. They agreed that there exist 
a number of spheres in which both countries can con- 
tribute to the strengthening of peace and interna- 
tional security. 

Both leaders expressed satisfaction with the re- 
sults of the talks they held and agreed that consul- 
tations will continue between the two countries at 
various levels on matters concerning their mutual re- 
lations, including the assessment of the implementa- 
tion of the agreements that were concluded as well 
as on important international issues of mutual in- 

The First Secretary and Mrs. Gierek expressed 
their warm gratitude for the hospitality and friend- 
liness accorded to them in the United States. 

The First Secretary extended an invitation to the 
President of the United States and Mrs. Ford to pay 
an official visit to the Polish People's Republic at a 
time convenient to them. The invitation was accepted 
with pleasure. 


Department of State Bulletin 

Secretary Kissinger Visits Six Arab Nations and Israel 

Secretary Kissinger left Washington Octo- 
ber 9 for a trip to the Middle East and re- 
turned October 15. Following is an exchange 
of remarks betiveen President Ford and Sec- 
retary Kissinger upon the Secretary's depar- 
ture from Andrews Air Force Base, together 
with exchanges of remarks with foreign 
leaders, statements, and press conferences 
by Secretary Kissinger in Egypt, Syria, Jor- 
dan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Mo- 


White House press release dated October 9 

President Ford 

It is nice to see you all, and I just came out 
with all the Cabinet members and others in 
the administration to express our apprecia- 
tion to the Secretary of State for going on 
this vitally important mission and to indicate 
my full support and the support of the ad- 
ministration for the, I think, tremendous ef- 
forts to bring peace in an area of the world 
that has been so volatile and controversial 
that it is important for the world, as well as 
the countries involved, that the maximum ef- 
forts for peace be made. 

This country and this administration are 
going to work with the skill and imagination 
of Dr. Kissinger in seeking that result. 

We wish you the very best. 

Secretary Kissinger 

I appreciate very much, Mr. President, 
your coming out to see me off. The problem 
of contributing to peace in the Middle East 
is a very complicated one ; but as I have had 

occasion to say before, it is a source of pride 
to all Americans that it is the United States 
that all parties trust, and that we will at- 
tempt to make some progress. 

I would like to say to the President this is 
the first time in a long time that one can go 
on these missions with an America that is at 
peace with itself. 

Thank you very much. 


Press release 399 dated October 9 

I am happy to be starting my tour in Cairo 
and to have this opportunity to talk to my 
friends. I'm here to see what the United 
States can do to contribute to progress to- 
ward peace in the Middle East. President 
Ford is committed to continue the efforts 
that the United States has made, and I will 
talk with my friends here in a spirit of mak- 
ing constructive progress. 

Thank you. 


Press release 405 dated October 11 

Ladies and gentlemen: I've been coming 
here more often than I can remember in the 
last year, and you've all been taking very 
good care of me. These young ladies here 
have been bossing me around in such a way 
that I'm a strong supporter now of women's 
liberation, which, as I understand it, gives 
men equality. [Laughter.] 

I came here for the first time last Novem- 
ber. We had a very small Interests Section 
here that had to kill itself to help with the 
arrangements that were made for me. I am 

November 4, 1974 


particularly conscious of our Egyptian 
friends who worked with us through all the 
difficult years when we had no formal rela- 
tionships, who stuck with us, and with whom 
we are proud to be associated now that our 
relationship has moved from one of coolness 
to one of growing friendship. 

Since then we had an opportunity to rees- 
tablish relations and to contribute to agree- 
ments between Israel and Egypt which we 
hope will mark the beginning of a process 
toward peace in the Middle East. I am here 
today because President Ford and I are com- 
mitted to continuing this process toward 

Now, none of these efforts are possible 
without the dedication and support of those 
of you who are working far away from 
Washington, convinced that your reports 
are never read — and I must say, if the State 
Department Secretariat had anything to do 
with it, that is exactly what would happen. 

But, as it happens, to me the relationship 
between Egypt and the United States is not 
just an assignment that goes with the job of 
Secretary of State, but one of the profound 
conviction that the United States and the 
Arab people are natural friends. We have no 
conflicting interests. We have been separated 
for many years due to misunderstandings on 
both sides. But now I think we have begun a 
new and lasting period in which our rela- 
tionship will grow ever closer. 

We are very dependent on the support and 
the advice of people like yourselves in areas 
like the Middle East. We are happy the indi- 
vidual still counts for something. The human 
relationships played such an important role, 
and the function of our offices is decisive. 

For a long time now I have wanted an op- 
portunity to thank you all personally for 
what you have done and for the dedication 
which I have seen on my trips and for the 
depth of your reporting. Of course, I am a 
great admirer of your Ambassador [Her- 
mann F. Eilts], and I'd steal him from you 
and bring him to Washington if the Presi- 
dent and the Foreign Minister here would 
let him go. So, as it is, I am afraid you are 
stuck with him for a while. 

I want you to know that the reporting we 

get from here is very much what I have in 
mind. Usually when I go to Embassies I tell 
them: Don't tell me all the details of your 
conversations; I want to know what the 
trends are, I want to understand what the 
relationship of events is, and I want to know 
where we are going. I don't have to give you 
that instruction because that is what I get 
from here, and I want you to know that I 
appreciate it. 

Now, you may not know that your Ambas- 
sador has been in the Foreign Service for 
quite some time. In fact, U.S.-Arab relations 
go back several hundred years, and I think 
Hermann has been affiliated with them for 
the greater part of that period. [Laughter.] 
But it says on his record, which I cannot be- 
lieve, that he has been associated with the 
Foreign Service for only 30 years. Since that 
is what the records say, I would like to take 
this occasion to give him this certificate of 
official recognition and appreciation for his 
dedicated service of 30 years and to thank 
you all for being partners with us in Wash- 
ington in what I think is one of the most im- 
portant, one of the most exciting, trends in 
American foreign policy that I can remem- 
ber — one that will continue and grow, and 
we shall all look back to it and remember that 
what we did made a difference. 

Thank you. 


Press release 407 dated October 11 

President Sadat: Dr. Kissinger is going to 
brief you. 

Secretary Kissinger: I was just waiting 
for the President. The President and I have 
both last night and this evening reviewed the 
entire range of Egyptian-U.S. bilateral rela- 
tionships as well as progress toward peace 
in the Middle East. I repeated to the Presi- 
dent, President Ford's interest that progress 
toward peace in the Middle East be main- 
tained. We reviewed the modalities both of 
procedures and of various points of view, the 
various aspects, in what I consider a very 


Department of State Bulletin 

constructive and positive manner and in the 
usual friendly atmosphere. 

Q. What are these modalities, Dr. Kissin- 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, I'm at the be- 
ginning of my trip, and I have to visit many 
other countries. I will return here on Mon- 
day to review my conversation with President 
Sadat, so I would think I would be going 
through them then. 

Q. President Sadat, what would you hope 
would be the next stage in the effort to se- 
cure peace in the Middle East ? 

President Sadat: Well, we have discussed 
this in broad lines and there are many items 
that we have already discussed. And as Dr. 
Kissinger says — the [inaudible] of the best 
relations that we have together — I think it 
is premature to tell you any details. 

Q. Do you expect further disengagement 
or withdrawal of the Israeli troops? 

Secretary Kissinger: I, of course, haven't 
visited, as I said, any of the other countries, 
but the Israeli Prime Minister has publicly 
stated that Israel is prepared to make terri- 
torial concessions in the proper context. That 
is what we are trying to discuss and explore. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, do you think that your 
trip will come out with concrete steps toward 
peace, toward the Geneva Conference and 
complete Israeli withdrawal from the Arab 
territories ? 

Secretary Kissinger: Before I left Wash- 
ington I told the American press corps that 
there probably would not be any dramatic 
announcement on this trip, and I never dis- 
appoint the American press corps. But I do 
believe that this trip will contribute toward 
progress, toward peace in the Middle East, 
and I am encouraged by my talks with Presi- 
dent Sadat. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, a year ago you said that 
you thought the whole matter would take 
about a year. Now that a year has passed, do 
you think it will take another year ? 

Secretary Kissinger: I don't think I should 

make any predictions as to any time period 
except what I have already pointed out: That 
we reviewed all the modalities and possible 
approaches, that we are committed to con- 
tributing to peace and progress toward 
peace, and that I am encouraged by my talks. 

Q. Are you going to leave Mr. Sisco [Jo- 
seph J. Sisco, Under Secretary for Political 
Affairs'] in the area or are you coming back 

Secretary Kissinger: I will take Mr. Sisco 
back with me as was always planned, and of 
course I plan to come back periodically to the 
area whenever my coming here can make a 
contribution toward peace. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, after your talks with 
President Sadat, is the next step clearer in 
your prospectus toward keeping the peace 
momentum in the area? 

Secretary Kissinger: 
clearer in my mind. 

It is somewhat 


Press release 408 dated October 11 

I just want to express my appreciation to 
President Sadat and the Foreign Minister 
for the excellent courtesy that has been ex- 
tended, for the warmth of the reception. We 
have had good talks, and we plan to continue 
them on Monday when I come through. 

It is always a pleasure to see my friends 
in Egypt. 

Thank you. 


Press release 412 dated October 12 

I just wanted to express my appreciation 
to the President and to the Foreign Minister 
for receiving me this past day. We had a 
session this afternoon and a longer session 
this evening. We reviewed bilateral relations 
between Syria and the United States, which 
are improving rapidly, and we also reviewed 
the prospects for peace in the Middle East 
in an overall perspective. We had very good, 



November 4, 1974 


very constructive talks in a friendly atmos- 

Q. Are prospects for peace in the Middle 
East also improving rapidly, Mr. Kissinger? 

Secretary Kissinger: I'm always encour- 

We also reviewed the prospects for peace 
negotiations which may develop. As is well 
known, the United States supports Jordan 
playing a role in any negotiations that may 

Thank you. 

Q. Are you coming back, Mr. Secretary? ARRIVAL, BEN GURION AIRPORT, OCTOBER 12 

Secretary Kissinger: I plan to come back 
on Monday for a few hours. 


Press release 413 dated October 12 

Secretary Kissinger: Ladies and gentle- 
men, first of all I would like to express my 
great pleasure to be here with our friends in 
Jordan. As you all know, I'm taking a trip 
through the area in order to determine what 
possibilities exist for a second stage of peace 
negotiations and what framework would be 
most suitable. In that effort, of course, the 
views of our friends in Jordan will be taken 
with the greatest seriousness, and the United 
States has already expressed its view as to a 
manner in which progress can be made. So I 
look forward very much to my conversa- 
tions with His Majesty and with the Prime 
Minister. I'm sorry I kept you all waiting out 

Q. Mr. Secretary, I don't like to sound im- 
pertinent, but I really wonder why you are 
here while Jordan has frozen its diplomatic 

Secretary Kissinger: Because I was invited 
to come here. 

Prime Minister Zaid Rifai: And he's al- 
ways most welcome here. 


Press release 414 dated October 15 

I just wanted to thank His Majesty and 
the Prime Minister for the very warm recep- 
tion that we have had here. We reviewed, of 
course, bilateral Jordanian-U.S. relations, 
which are excellent. 

Press release 415 dated October 15 

Israeli Foreign Minister Yigal Allon 

Secretary of State Dr. Kissinger, Honor- 
able Ambassador of the United States in Is- 
rael, Honorable Ambassador of Israel in the 
United States, friends: I am very happy to 
welcome here tonight our friend Dr. Kissin- 
ger. Dr. Kissinger is a frequent visitor to the 
Middle East and to this country, and usually, 
almost every visit of his is resulting with 
good news. We are very interested that the 
present mission, the mission of peace, which 
Henry Kissinger took upon himself will suc- 
ceed, and the Government of Israel will do its 
best to contribute its share to keep the mo- 
mentum going. 

We welcome Dr. Kissinger as a great 
statesman and as a great friend, and we all 
hope and wish him and all of us in this re- 
gion satisfactory progress toward our great 
goal, which is peace in the area. 

Secretary Kissinger 

Mr. Foreign Minister, friends : I have vis- 
ited Israel many times over the past year, 
and I have always come in pursuit of an ob- 
jective that no people needs as much and has 
searched for as much as the people of Israel — 
the objective of peace. We have often when 
I came had frank discussions, and there has 
been speculation in the press about this or 
that disagreement. But always we have 
spoken to each other as friends and partners, 
and always we have achieved results that 
were to the benefit also of the people of Is- 

I am confident that the talks I will have 
with my friend the Foreign Minister and 
with all of my friends in the Cabinet will be 


Department of State Bulletin 

characterized by frankness and honesty on 
both sides. But I am also positive we will 
come out, as we always have, with agreement 
that will be to the benefit of all of the peo- 
ples in this area, above all, to our friends 
here in Israel, who have suffered more than 
anybody from the absence of peace. 


Press release 416 dated October 15 

Secretary Kissinger 

Ladies and gentlemen : We have completed 
extensive talks with the Prime Minister, the 
Foreign Minister, and the Defense Minister. 
We reviewed the bilateral relationships in a 
harmonious manner with a constructive out- 
come. We discussed what progress can be 
made toward peace and a settlement in the 
Middle East. We agreed on principles and 
procedures that might be followed, and the 
general tone and content of the discussion 
was, as I pointed out, harmonious. 

Before I come to Israel I always read in 
the newspapers about difficulties and possi- 
ble suspicions. But these attitudes, in my 
experience, have never survived the actual 
dialogue among friends, because peace in the 
Middle East is in everybody's interest, and 
as I said yesterday, in nobody's interest 
more than that of Israel's — which I have 
found prepared to work for it with its usual 
dedication and tenacity. 

Thank you. 

Foreign Minister Allon 

When I came back from New York I told 
the press that the Secretary of State was 
about to pay a short visit to the Middle East, 
including Israel. In answering questions, I 
said that you don't have to expect too much 
from a short visit of this kind, that no com- 
plete substance may be already negotiated, 
that maybe principles and procedural prob- 
lems may be discussed, exactly as Dr. Kis- 
singer said just now. 

But from our own experience I can tell 
you that this short stay of his and our exten- 

November 4, 1974 

sive talks yesterday and today were an indis- 
pensable phase in the process of peacemaking 
in the Middle East and that we are very 
grateful to Secretary Kissinger for coming 
to this country and I'm sure that this will be 
remembered as one of the necessary steps in 
our endeavor to achieve peace and stability 
in this area. 


Press release 417 dated October 15 

Secretary Kissinger 

I would like first of all to express my ap- 
preciation to His Majesty [and] my friend 
Umar Saqqaf for the very warm and gra- 
cious reception we received here. His Majesty 
and I reviewed the steps that seemed feasible 
toward peace in the Middle East, and I found 
His Majesty understanding and supportive. 
We also reviewed our bilateral relationships 
expressed in several of the joint commis- 
sions and in other matters, and we found 
them to be excellent. Nevertheless we de- 
cided to strengthen the already close rela- 
tionship even further. 

I explained to His Majesty our view with 
respect to the price of oil and the impact this 
can have on the whole structure of the world 
economy and the stability of the whole inter- 
national system. His Majesty's attitude was 
constructive and enlightened. I believe the 
policy of the Kingdom will be in a construc- 
tive direction, keeping always in mind what 
we also believe — that the ultimate solution 
must be found on multilateral basis and can- 
not be found by isolated actions. 

I am very grateful for the opportunity that 
was given to me here to exchange ideas with 
my friend Umar Saqqaf, the audience that 
was granted to me by His Majesty; and I 
leave here encouraged and with the convic- 
tion that I am indeed among friends. 

Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Umar al-Saqqaf 

I will start where my friend finished. I 
assure him that he is in a friendly country 




and among friends. We are proud of his 
friendship, as much as Saudi Arabia is proud 
of its friendship with the United States. We 
appreciate the great efforts which our great 
friend is exerting toward peace under the 
guidance of the President of the United States 
of America, for whom we have great appre- 
ciation and respect. 

We say in Arabic, "Each theologian has his 
own school of thought." At the outset, I used 
to have inhibitions and, I might even say, 
doubts about the method followed by our 
friend in his peacemaking efforts. But with 
the passage of time, and as events unfolded, 
I began to be sold on his efforts toward solv- 
ing problems. 

I am not being a flatterer when I praise 
our friend Henry's methods, but it is a state- 
ment of fact. Suffice it to review a change 
which has occurred during only a few months 
in the way we used to be and are now re- 
ceived by the representatives of the press. 

Still, while I say that we have achieved a 
lot, I must add that we are still at the bottom 
rung of the ladder in our efforts. But we 
believe that with the grace of God we shall 
achieve peace in the area, peace based on 
justice and the right to self-determination. 

At the same time we feel we have achieved 
a wider cooperation on a bilateral basis be- 
tween Saudi Arabia and the United States. 
It is my belief that these relations could not 
have been strengthened and realized had we 
not discerned a clear light pointing in the 
direction of a complete solution to the prob- 
lem of the Middle East, a solution based on 
complete withdrawal of Israel from terri- 
tories occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, 
and the restoration of the Palestinian people 
of their rights. 

My relationship with my dear friend has 
always been based on frankness. Time has 
proved that mutual frankness is the only path 
leading to friendship and solutions. Dr. Kis- 
singer has heard from His Majesty the King 
the viewpoint of Saudi Arabia and an expla- 
nation of Saudi policy toward world questions 
and toward the problems of the area. This 
policy as expounded by the King is not an 
overnight policy; it's the traditional time- 
honored policy of Saudi Arabia. I will con- 

tinue to strive to explain the details of this 
policy whether here or over there during my 

Our colleague Dr. Kissinger spoke about 
the question of oil. I want to explain what the 
attitude of Saudi Arabia on this problem is 
frankly and clearly. It is there for everyone 
with eyes to see and everyone with clean ears 
to hear. Saudi Arabia is following a policy on 
oil which bespeaks a sense of responsibility 
toward the welfare of the world community. 
As part of the world, we want to build the 
world and not destroy it. And we hope that 
other members of the world community come 
to appreciate the gravity of this responsi- 
bility and the importance thereof. 

Oil is not everything, but it is a great thing. 
We will continue in the direction of the con- 
structive policy laid down by His Majesty the 
King. It is the policy of cooperation, negoti- 
ation, and constructive cooperation between 
us and friendly nations of the world. Dr. Kis- 
singer has expressed adequately his govern- 
ment's attitude toward oil when he said that 
Saudi Arabia should not be isolated in its oil 
policy. But we sincerely hope, and it is our 
prayer, that all of the other oil-producing 
countries will come around to following the 
policy of Saudi Arabia. 

I would like to welcome our friend Dr. Kis- 
singer and assure him of our welcome every 
time. We also appreciate the great efforts to- 
ward peace that our friend is exerting as well 
as his fathomless knowledge and deep wis- 
dom. We wish him success in his tremendous 
efforts to achieve peace on the international 
level. All I wish to say on closing [is] that 
we hope he will take a few more days, not 
just a few hours, on his coming visit. Bon 
voyage and good luck. 


Press release 418 dated October 16 

First of all, let me say what a pleasure it is 
to be back in Egypt. I have had a very useful, 
very interesting trip, in which I spoke to all 
the leaders that I met about how to move the 
Middle East toward a just and lasting peace. 
This is what I will really explore tomorrow 


Department of State Bulletin 

also with President Sadat and tonight with 
Foreign Minister Fahmy. I look forward to 
this talk very much. 
Thank you. 


Press release 419 dated October 15 

Secretary Kissinger: First of all, I would 
like to thank the President for receiving me 
during the fast. I reported to the President 
the problems of the area and about the con- 
versations that I have had with various lead- 
ers in the countries that I have visited. I told 
him my conclusions that there are positive in- 
dications that we are making as much prog- 
ress toward a just peace in the area as pos- 

The President told me that he would dis- 
cuss these with his colleagues, with the Gov- 
ernment of Egypt, and with the other Arab 
leaders after the summit in Rabat. I there- 
fore plan to return to the area during the 
first week of November, and we shall then 
attempt to set the progress toward peace in 
the Middle East on a firm and concrete basis. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, do you expect this prog- 
ress to be made on more than one front or on 
one front? 

Secretary Kissinger: We shall have to make 
this judgment after all the consultations 
among all the leaders have been completed; 
then I'll return to the area. 

Q. Could we ask about the line in Sinai? 
Has that been determined more or less? 

Secretary Kissinger: I repeat, there were 
no maps discussed and at this stage we are 
not dealing with detailed negotiations but 
rather with the framework and the similar 
prospects toward peace in the area, about 
which there are positive indications. 

Q. Does this mean, Dr. Kissinger, that no 
further Israeli withdrawal will take place? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, as I said when 
I was here last, the negotiations obviously 
will concern the substance of Israeli with- 

drawals in the framework of a general nego- 
tiation and obviously a topic of concern. 

Q. Mr. President, did you discuss the Ge- 
neva Conference in any substance ? 

President Sadat: Well, I have discussed all 
this with Dr. Kissinger and, as he said, I am 
going to discuss them with my colleagues in 
the summit meeting. 

Q. To follow that up, Mr. President, will 
you tell us how you see the Palestinians be- 
ing represented when negotiations in Geneva 

President Sadat: Well, we have already — 
among us, as Arabs, we have already asked 
for this and we shall always be asking for 
the Palestinians to be represented in Geneva 
because, as we have said, Palestine is the 
core of the whole problem. 

Q. Dr. Kissinger, at this stage what is 
your position on the Palestinian problem? 

Secretary Kissinger: I have pointed out 
previously that we believe that negotiations 
on the West Bank would be most efficiently 
carried out between Jordan and Israel, but 
it is the kind of decision that has to be made 
by all the parties concerned. 

Q. Mr. President, were the plans made for 
your visit to the United States tentatively? 

Secretary Kissinger: The President is al- 
ways most welcome, and we are now thinking 
of a visit early in the new year. 

Q. Mr. President, what are you prepared 
to guarantee Israel in exchange for a with- 

President Sadat: Why am I asked about 

Secretary Kissinger: I've said the Presi- 
dent would be delighted to negotiate the 
whole thing [garbled] . 

President Sadat: I need guarantees like the 
Israelis. I myself need guarantees. 

Q. Mr. President, how do you feel about 
the Rabat Conference? 

President Sadat: Very optimistic. 

November 4, 1974 


Q. Mr. President, did you discuss the oil 
problem with Dr. Kissinger? 

President Sadat: The oil problem, well, it 
is part of the problem to discuss, but I am 
not an oil producer. 


Press release 420 dated October 15 

I've already said everything I think I can 
say, but I want to thank President Sadat and 
the Foreign Ministry, Foreign Minister Fah- 
my, for the very warm reception we've re- 

I'm leaving the area now; I think we've 
made some progress. I'll return early in 
November, and as I said before, I hope then 
to put the matter on a concrete and definite 


Press release 421 dated October 15 

I would like first of all to express my 
appreciation to President Asad and to the 
Foreign Minister for receiving me at the 
end of a day of fasting and for the extra- 
ordinary courtesy with which they treated 
me under what I know were personally 
difficult circumstances for them. 

As I did this morning with President 
Sadat, I reviewed with President Asad the 
trends and developments I found in the area 
in the direction of peace and an ultimate set- 
tlement. I pointed out to him that I found 
some positive and encouraging signs and that 
our problem now was to put them into con- 
crete focus. As I pointed out already this 
morning in Cairo, I intend to return to the 
area in the early part of November. By that 
time the Arab summit will have taken place 
and I can then resume consultations with the 
various leaders to see what concrete ex- 
pression can be given to this search for peace 
in the Middle East. 

I note that we're approaching the end of 
Ramadan, and I'd like to wish the people of 
the area a happy Eid. 



Press release 422 dated October 15 

Let me first make a general statement. 
This is my third visit to Algiers within a 
year, and it reflects the very high regard in 
which President Boumediene is held in the 
United States. We recognize his leading role 
among nonaligned, and we take his views on 
international affairs and economic matters 
with a great deal of seriousness. 

Therefore I look forward to benefiting 
from his wisdom and to bringing him the 
personal greetings of President Ford. I will 
also discuss with him our views in interna- 
tional affairs, especially about developments 
in the Middle East. So, I look forward to my 
visit here very much. 

As I have said earlier in the day in Cairo 
and Damascus, the purpose of my visit was 
to determine the trend and possibilities to- 
ward a just and lasting peace in the Middle 
East. I found some positive signs and some 
positive indications, and our aim now will be 
to give them concrete form, perhaps when I 
return to the Middle East during Novem- 
ber. At that time, the leaders of the Arab 
countries will have had an opportunity to 
consult with each other at the summit and 

As for the United States, President Ford 
has reaffirmed our determination to contrib- 
ute what we can to the development of peace 
in the area to the extent that the parties con- 
cerned want our contribution and can agree 
on a course of procedure. 

Thank you. 


Press release 423 dated October 15 

Let me make a few comments. First of all, 
I would like to thank President Boumediene 
and his colleagues for the very warm recep- 
tion I have received here. I reviewed with 
President Boumediene first of all my impres- 
sions of my trip through the Middle East. 

I told President Boumediene of the U.S. 
commitment to help the parties make prog- 

Department of State Bulletin 

ress toward a just and lasting peace if they 
can agree among themselves on principles 
and procedures for the next stage. I told him 
of some of the positive trends that I found. 
His advice was very helpful, and his attitude 
was very understanding. I told him that I 
would return to the area in November to at- 
tempt to give the positive trends a concrete 
expression after the Arab leaders have had an 
opportunity to consult with each other. 

We also discussed our differing approaches 
to the question of oil prices, and we reviewed 
ways and approaches to reconcile these dif- 
ferent points of view in the months ahead. 

Finally, we reviewed the state of bilateral 
Algerian-U.S. relationships. We found that 
they had improved considerably in recent 
months. We are convinced that they will take 
a positive evolution in the near future. 

It remains for me to thank my Algerian 
hosts for their characteristic hospitality, to 
express my regret that my friend the Foreign 
Minister was kept in New York by other du- 
ties; but this gave me the opportunity to 
meet the Minister of Interior. 

Thank you. 


Press release 425 dated October 15 

I would like to express my great pleasure 
at this opportunity of being able to visit 
Morocco again. It is less than a year ago that 
I visited your country. It was the first Arab 
country on which I ever set foot. 

I had a long and very fruitful conversa- 
tion with His Majesty and with his Ministers, 
and the advice that I received was extreme- 
ly helpful in the subsequent peace missions 
through the Middle East ; and of course the 
friendship between Morocco and the United 
States is long and on a very firm basis. 

I look forward very much to my conver- 
sations here which I am confident will 
strengthen that friendship and from which 
I will draw, I'm positive, guidance and advice 
for further peace efforts in the Middle East. 
I am also bringing to His Majesty the warm- 
est greetings of President Ford, who is 

looking forward to an opportunity to meet 
with His Majesty at an early occasion. 
Thank you. 


Press release 426 dated October 15 

His Majesty and I had an extended conver- 
sation, which was joined later by our asso- 
ciates. We reviewed first of all the situation 
in the Middle East in the light of my recent 
trip as well as the contacts which His Maj- 
esty has had in preparation for the Arab 
summit. I explained to His Majesty some of 
the positive trends which I have found in the 
area. We discussed principles and methods 
which might lead step by step to a solution 
of all of the problems standing in the way of 
a just and lasting peace. 

We hope that the Arab summit will make a 
contribution to a solution of all of these 
problems. As I have pointed out in other cap- 
itals, after the conclusion of the Arab sum- 
mit I will return to this area to see in what 
way and by what methods these aspirations 
for peace can be given concrete context. 

His Majesty and I reviewed bilateral Amer- 
ican-Moroccan relations, which we found to 
be excellent. In order to cement further our 
traditional friendship, I extended the invi- 
tation of President Ford to His Majesty to 
visit the United States in the spring of 1975. 
His Majesty has accepted. We will not be 
able to match Moroccan hospitality, but we 
will do the best within the capabilities of a 
young country. 


Press release 428 dated October 16 

Ladies and gentlemen : My colleagues and I 
are delighted to be back. We went to the 
Middle East in order to see whether we could 
start a process toward another round of 
negotiations. We found a general receptivity 
to a step-by-step approach and a great will- 
ingness for the United States to continue to 
play a role. 

November 4, 1974 


Now, as you know, the various Arab lead- 
ers are consulting, and they are also meeting 
at a summit in Morocco in another couple of 
weeks. After that I shall return to the area 
and hope that we can continue the progress 
toward peace that has started in the last 
11 months. It's a great pleasure to be home 

Thank you. 

President Ford Signs Defense Bill; 
Cautions on Viet-Nam Funding 

Statement by President Ford x 

I am pleased to have signed H.R. 16243. 
Although not all administration recommenda- 
tions were accepted, I recognize and appreci- 
ate bipartisan efforts made by the House- 
Senate conference committee to produce a 
defense appropriations bill acceptable to both 
Houses and sufficient for our national secu- 
rity needs. 

The bill has, however, a major drawback. 
The $700 million funding for South Viet- 
Nam is inadequate to provide for all of their 
critical needs if South Viet-Nam's enemies 
continue to press their attacks. It may there- 
fore be necessary to approach the Congress 
early next year to work out some solutions 
to meet critical needs which arise. 

Each year the President of the United 
States must sign into law an appropriations 
bill for our defense. From my experience in 
Congress, I know all too well the conflicts 
this defense bill can produce in the name of 
economy and other national interests. Thus, 
as I sign such a bill for the first time as 
President, I want to renew my pledge to build 
a new partnership between the executive and 
legislative branches of our government, a 
partnership based on close consultation, com- 
promise of differences, and a high regard for 
the constitutional duties and powers of both 
branches to work for the common good and 
security of our nation. 

issued on Oct. 9 (text from White House press 
release); as enacted, the bill is Public Law 93-437, 
approved Oct. 8. 

Annual Meeting of SEATO Council 
Held at New York 

Deputy Secretary Ingersoll was the chief 
U.S. delegate at the annual meeting of the 
SEATO Council held at New York October 
3. Following is a press statement issued at 
the conclusion of the meeting. 

The Council of the South-East Asia Treaty 
Organization (SEATO), comprised of min- 
isterial representatives from Australia, New 
Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand, the 
United Kingdom, and the United States, held 
its nineteenth annual meeting in New York 
on 3 October. 

The Secretary-General announced that the 
Council held an informal and wide-ranging 
exchange of views on the situation in South- 
east Asia and agreed to continue to uphold 
the objectives of the Manila Pact and its 
basic purpose of strengthening the fabric of 
peace in the region. 

The Council affirmed that the recently re- 
organized structure and programmes of 
SEATO accorded with the goal of the treaty 
that member nations co-operate in promising 
economic progress, social well-being and 
peace in the treaty area, and were conso- 
nant with the currently prevailing conditions 
in Southeast Asia. 

Satisfaction was expressed by the Council 
with the Secretary-General's reorganization 
of the staff at SEATO Headquarters in Bang- 
kok in accordance with the directives of the 
Eighteenth Council Meeting held last year. 
It agreed that the integration of the civilian 
and military staffs of the organization, which 
came into effect on 1 February 1974, facili- 
tated SEATO's current emphasis upon sup- 
porting the internal security and develop- 
ment programmes of the two regional mem- 
bers, the Philippines and Thailand. 

The Council also noted that SEATO as- 
sistance to projects in the social and eco- 
nomic fields had been increased, with greater 
emphasis upon the rural economic develop- 
ment and rural education sectors. Member 
countries will continue multilateral or bilat- 
eral social and economic aid to the regional 
members under SEATO auspices. 


Department of State Bulletin 

America's Purposes in an Ambiguous Age 

Address by Winston Lord 
Director, Policy Planning Staff l 

For 200 years America has been confident 
of its purposes, secure in its strength, and 
certain of its growing prosperity. 

Throughout most of our history, isolation 
made possible an uncomplicated view of the 
world. In the period following World War 
II, our preeminent power encouraged us to 
believe we could shape the globe according to 
American designs. 

Today, as we approach our third century, 
we find — like most other nations in history — 
that we can neither escape from the world 
nor dominate it. America is destined to cope 
with a shrinking planet of dispersed power, 
diverse goals, and interdependent economies. 

We must define our national purposes in an 
ambiguous age : 

— Our traditional partners have regained 
power and self-confidence. This can enlarge 
our common capacity for shaping events, or 
it can result in tests of strengths among us. 

— Ideological conflict with Communist pow- 
ers has diminished, and cold war tensions 
have decreased. But serious differences re- 
main, and a renewal of confrontation would 
be even more treacherous than before. 

— Nuclear superiority has given way to 
nuclear parity and the specter of prolifera- 
tion. These new dimensions of power could 
compel restraint or unleash a cataclysm. 

— National prosperity increasingly must 
be seen in the context of the world economy. 
Economic interdependence can enrich, or it 
can impoverish. 

1 Made before the Commonwealth Club at San 
Francisco, Calif., on Oct. 11 (text from press release 
404 dated Oct. 10; as prepared for delivery). 

In this setting the United States cannot 
forfeit leadership out of weariness or frus- 
tration. While we are more aware than ever 
of our limits, others still see us as the strong- 
est nation in the world. No other country can 
evoke the new sense of common purpose that 
our partnerships require, balance potential 
adversaries so as to induce cooperation and 
restraint, help mediate conflicts in areas of 
chronic tension, and offer leadership in a 
world of economic uncertainty. 

Thus an era of transition offers both prom- 
ise and peril. We must understand the 
changes we face, or we will be crippled by 
change itself. We must be conscious of both 
the limits to our strength and the responsi- 
bilities that strength entails. We must co- 
exist with other ideals without abandoning 
our own. We must accept complexity without 
losing our way. 

In an era where we can no longer over- 
whelm our problems with resources, our vi- 
sion may be the most crucial resource of all. 

George Kennan, the first Director of the 
State Department's Policy Planning Staff, 
put the need concisely : 

If we are to regard ourselves as a grown-up na- 
tion — and anything else will henceforth be mortally 
dangerous — then we must, as the Biblical phrase 
goes, put away childish things; and among these 
childish things the first to go . . . should be self- 
idealization and the search for absolutes in world af- 
fairs: for absolute security, absolute amity, absolute 

These are the challenges we face in apply- 
ing this prescription : 

— First, with friends: to reconcile our in- 

• ' 




November 4, 1974 


dependent identities with continuing collab- 

— Second, with possible adversaries: to 
reconcile the reality of competition with the 
necessity for cooperation. 

— Third, with military power : to reconcile 
a strong national defense with the control of 
nuclear arms. 

— Fourth, with economic power: to recon- 
cile the national interest and the interna- 
tional interest. 

Let me address each of these four chal- 
lenges in turn. 

Evolving Partnerships 

Partners in international politics, as in 
marriage, take each other for granted only 
at the risk of divorce. Our alliances must 
grow or they will wither — adjust to new con- 
ditions or become anachronistic. 

Our relationships were molded in a period 
of American predominance, the threat of 
Communist expansion, and the presumption 
of economic growth. As the United States at- 
tempts to share the burdens of leadership, as 
Europe seeks unity, Japan its international 
role, Latin America equality, and as we seek 
together to grapple with the implications of 
detente and interdependence, some pangs of 
adjustment must be expected. 

Our central concern is to strengthen our 
partnerships to deal with emerging realities : 

— The United States supports Western Eu- 
rope's historic striving for unity. But Euro- 
pean identity must not be at the expense of 
Atlantic community, or both sides of the 
ocean will suffer. The "Year of Europe" was 
an effort to give renewed meaning and in- 
spiration to transatlantic ties in a pro- 
foundly changed international environment. 
It began a healthy, if sometimes difficult, 
process of clarification and taking stock. The 
air has now been cleared. There is a solid ba- 
sis for further progress. 

— The United States encourages Japan's 
search for international identity. But we 
must maintain a sense of mutual security and 
common aspirations. Our evolving relation- 

ship has been punctuated by occasional fric- 
tions; the episodes proved transient because 
our objectives have remained parallel. Our 
partnership is now on a sounder footing al- 
though it will deserve constant care. 

— The United States is helping other allies 
in Asia to reach greater self-sufficiency. But 
the transition should be gradual; the man- 
ner of the transfer reflects the motive of the 
transfer. Moving too slowly would stifle our 
friends' incentive for self-defense and self- 
development; moving too fast would under- 
mine their self-confidence and paralyze their 

— The United States has launched a new 
dialogue with Latin America. But the search 
for a more mature partnership must lead to 
a new sense of community, not an adversary 
relationship. Our past policy for this hemi- 
sphere has oscillated between U.S. prescrip- 
tion and U.S. neglect. We are seeking a more 
stable approach based on realistic commit- 
ments and shared endeavors. 

In short, with our friends we seek a bal- 
ance between dominance and diffidence. The 
world is too complex, and our allies too inde- 
pendent, for American blueprints. At the 
same time, there is the continual danger that 
weary Americans and wary foreigners will 
translate self-reliance into abandonment. 
Our friends consider an active and creative 
American role essential for their interests 
and for a stable peace. 

Therefore we must evoke initiatives from 
others while continuing to take initiatives 
ourselves. Where once we found inspiration 
in stewardship, we must now find it in part- 
nership. Above all, we and our allies must 
act on the belief, once expressed by Jean 
Monnet, that "the inescapable forces which 
are molding the future bind us even more 
closely than memories of the past." 

The Decline of Ideology 

For a generation the unity of our alliances 
and the support of the American people 
were sustained by the perception of a mono- 
lithic threat from the Communist powers. 
We were joined in a struggle which made 


Department of State Bulletin 

accommodation difficult, if not immoral. 

This situation has profoundly changed. 
The fragmentation of the Communist bloc, 
the evolving strategic balance, and economic 
incentives suggested the possibilities for 
more constructive East- West relations. Mos- 
cow and Peking, while proclaiming basic So- 
cialist tenets, have emphasized geopolitical 
interests. They are acting more like world 
powers and less like revolutionary move- 

We, in turn, have generally shed the notion 
that others should mirror our social and eco- 
nomic structures. We deal with foreign coun- 
tries primarily on the basis of their foreign 
policies. We cannot transform their domestic 
systems, though we can hope that relaxed in- 
ternational tensions will promote a positive 

This decline of ideological struggle is an 
encouraging trend. But it carries with it 
ambiguities and fresh problems. 

Are reports of the death of Communist doc- 
trine greatly exaggerated? We cannot be 
sure that future leaders will embrace the 
more constructive approaches now being pur- 
sued in some Communist capitals. The Com- 
munist powers could once again act like rev- 
olutionary states out to disrupt the interna- 
tional system rather than nation-states will- 
ing to accept its legitimacy. 

The United States will heavily influence 
their course. We will need to continue our 
policies of providing incentives for coopera- 
tion while displaying firmness against pres- 
sures. But Americans tend to take for granted 
the improvement in East- West relations and 
the lowering of global tensions. Some there- 
fore assume that continued progress is auto- 
matic; others believe in hardening our de- 
mands. Some would jeopardize the process 
of detente by removing the incentives ; others 
would ignore the continuing need for firm- 

We need to avoid the poles of intransigence 
and euphoria. 

For a generation, brief moments of im- 
proved relations with the Soviet Union gave 
way to prolonged periods of confrontation. 
We must now build an irreversible commit- 

ment to preserving peace. In the nuclear era 
there is no rational alternative. 

For a generation, we and the People's Re- 
public of China were separated by a gulf of 
isolation and hostility. We must expand the 
hopeful openings of the last few years. In the 
nuclear era there is no rational alternative. 

Can Americans rally to a pastel banner? 
There is possible ambiguity about our pur- 
poses. Whatever its demerits, anti-Commu- 
nism was at least a clear-cut rationale for 
our foreign policy, easily understood by 
Americans and allies alike. This formed a 
solid consensus for a global foreign policy. 
As ideology has waned, it has been difficult 
to sound a new theme to weld consensus at 
home and cement alliances abroad. 

This is largely a question of leadership. 
We must derive inspiration from the long- 
term building of a more stable world through 
negotiation, accommodation, and restraint. 
With friends, we have the foundation of 
shared values and ideals ; we can sustain our 
bonds by working together on the many new 
problems on the global agenda. These posi- 
tive tasks must inspire our diplomacy in a 
grayer world. 

Finally, how do we reconcile the prag- 
matic pursuit of peace with the promotion of 
our ideals? Concerned Americans have won- 
dered whether we can be true to our values 
while dealing realistically with adversaries, 
friends, and the nonaligned. 

Secretary Kissinger described the tension 
between our goals in a speech he made a year 
ago: 2 

In a community of sovereign states, the quest for 
peace involves a paradox: The attempt to impose ab- 
solute justice by one side will be seen as absolute 
injustice by all others; the quest for total security 
for some turns into total insecurity for the remain- 
der. Stability depends on the relative satisfaction 
and therefore also the relative dissatisfaction of the 
various states. The pursuit of peace must therefore 
begin with the pragmatic concept of coexistence .... 

We must, of course, avoid becoming obsessed with 
stability. An excessively pragmatic policy will be 
empty of vision and humanity. It will lack not only 
direction, but also roots and heart. . . . America can- 


2 For Secretary Kissinger's address before the 
Pacem in Terris Conference at Washington on Oct. 
8, 1973, see Bulletin of Oct. 29, 1973, p. 525. 

November 4, 1974 


not be true to itself without moral purpose. This 
country has always had a sense of mission. Amer- 
icans have always held the view that America stood 
for something above and beyond its material achieve- 
ments. A purely pragmatic policy provides no crite- 
ria for other nations to assess our performance and 
no standards to which the American people can rally. 

So, our foreign policy must reflect our na- 
tional ideals. Otherwise it cannot be sus- 
tained in a democracy. But for the first time 
in history man can destroy mankind. In this 
nuclear age the pursuit of peace is itself a 
profound moral concern. In this nuclear age 
the loss of peace could mean the loss of all 
values and ideals. 

The Redefinition of Power 

While we must avoid a preoccupation with 
power alone, we must deal with the realities 
that it imposes. The need for a strong na- 
tional defense stretches ahead for as far as 
we can see. This nation cannot mortgage its 
future to the good intentions of others. 

But maintaining national security is more 
complex than ever before. For power is 
harder to define than ever before. Once, po- 
litical, military, and economic power were 
closely related. But in the modern world ad- 
ditional armament cannot always be trans- 
lated into additional political leverage; eco- 
nomic giants can be politically weak; coun- 
tries can exert political influence without 
possessing either military strength or eco- 
nomic might. Power is spread more diffusely 
across the globe, and its use is more complex. 

These conditions are most dramatically 
demonstrated by the nuclear dimension. The 
overwhelming destructiveness of nuclear 
weapons makes it difficult to relate their ac- 
cumulation to specific objectives. Once a na- 
tion can destroy its opponent even after a 
surprise attack, it is difficult to know what 
numbers and capabilities would yield a su- 
periority that has either military or political 
use. A massive shift in the balance would be 
needed to produce a decisive advantage. And 
clearly neither side will permit this to hap- 

If superiority in the nuclear age is elusive, 
the pursuit of it is deeply destabilizing. Any 
course which conceivably threatens the sur- 


vival of an opponent is bound to have severe 
impact. The relaxation of political tensions 
cannot proceed in the face of an unrestrained 
arms buildup. Yet to sustain such a race 
would require, and perpetuate, an atmos- 
phere of hostility. 

Against this background we face two es- 
sential challenges: 

— First, we must slow, and ultimately re- 
verse, the growth of nuclear weapons among 
major powers. The United States and the 
Soviet Union are heading for arsenals in- 
volving thousands of launchers and over 
10,000 warheads. We will never accept the 
strategic preponderance of another power. 
We will do what is required. But the political 
decisions of our two nations must not be de- 
termined by the pace of technology and the 
inertia of mutual suspicion. We must move 
decisively to achieve comprehensive and equi- 
table limits on strategic arms. 

— Second, we must stop the spread of nu- 
clear weapons to new nations and regions. 
We had become accustomed to a world of 
five nuclear powers; the recent nuclear ex- 
plosion in India reminds us of the perils of 
proliferation. A world of 10 or 20 nuclear 
nations would clearly be less tranquil and 
secure. Chronic conflicts such as the Middle 
East could assume a nuclear dimension. Dev- 
astation in local wars could reach levels no 
civilized nation desires. The threat of major- 
power involvement might increase. Around 
the globe there would be greater risks of nu- 
clear accident or theft or blackmail. 

Last month at the United Nations, Secre- 
tary Kissinger underlined American deter- 
mination to work with others to halt the 
spread of nuclear explosives. He proposed 
strengthened cooperation among the princi- 
pal suppliers of nuclear materials, enhanced 
safeguards and security for these materials, 
and continuing support for the Treaty on 
Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 

We will work to seal Pandora's box. 

Growing Interdependence 

Even as we have dealt with more tradi- 
tional problems, a whole new series of chal- 

Department of State Bulletin 

lenges have burst upon us. They transcend 
ideological and geographic boundaries. They 
link national prosperity to international 

Global interdependence is no longer a slo- 
gan, but an insistent reality. The crises of 
oil, food, and inflation cast shadows over the 
future of developed and developing, rich and 
poor, consumer and producer nations alike. 
Not only the prospects for world growth are 
at stake. A serious economic decline could 
trigger widespread domestic instability and 
tear the fabric of international political co- 
operation upon which peace itself depends. 

President Ford spoke to these issues of in- 
terdependence three weeks ago in New York. 
He pointed out that many developing nations 
need the food of a few developed nations, 
that many industrialized nations need the 
oil of a few developing nations, that energy 
is needed to provide food, food to produce 
energy, and both to provide for a decent life. 

The size of the American grain crop may 
determine how many people live or die in 
South Asia. Long-term climate changes could 
eventually affect food production here, as 
well as spreading devastation in the African 
Sahel. The decisions of a few oil producers 
may ricochet around the world. 

We will all advance together, or we can all 
slide back together. Nations no longer can 
afford to pursue national or regional or bloc 
self-interest without a broader perspective. 
Countries must find their self-interest in the 
common interest and, indeed, recognize that 
the two are often identical. 

The United States might do better on its 
own than others. But we could not prosper. 
And we could never feel secure in a sea of 
human misery, rising tensions, and likely con- 

The time of easy choices for this nation is 
gone. Accustomed to relative self-sufficiency, 
we now face the reality which has confronted 
Europe, Japan, and most other nations for 
decades — dependence on an open, cooperative 
international system for national growth. 
America must reconcile its national and glob- 
al goals. 

We no longer possess a vast surplus of 
food. But we retain an enormous productive 

capacity. We have a moral obligation to help 
meet the world's growing hunger as well as 
to feed our own people. And we have a po- 
litical interest in tracing a constructive pat- 
tern for other producers of other resources. 

We no longer have a seemingly endless sup- 
ply of energy. But we must join more vul- 
nerable friends to conserve, to explore new 
sources, to share in emergencies — because of 
our interest in their stability and well-being. 

We no longer have a low rate of inflation. 
But we must move carefully — with others — 
to regain control, lest we spark a world de- 

But these particular issues reflect a deeper 
phenomenon: Basic preconceptions of inter- 
national and domestic policy are being rudely 
shaken. The structure of the postwar world 
is being challenged in ways for which we are 
not yet intellectually prepared. 

Leaders must grasp the basic forces at 
work in the world and impart this vision to 
their peoples. The public does not expect in- 
stant solutions. But it must be confident that 
the problems are understood and that they 
are being addressed. 

What is at stake is mankind's faith that 
man still shapes his future. 

The Domestic Dimension 

At a time when the world is in flux and a 
new American role emerging, we are sub- 
jected as well to profound changes at home. 
A nation which first explored its own fron- 
tiers, and then stretched its presence around 
the world, now requires a new horizon. As 
our bicentennial approaches, America must 
maintain the vigor of youth, earn the wis- 
dom of maturity, and shun the weariness of 
old age. 

Our next frontier is to find peace within 

Let us begin by restoring our self-confi- 
dence. In the past dozen years, we have lost 
one President through murder, another 
through Viet-Nam, and another through scan- 
dal. We have agonized through our longest 
and most inconclusive war. Our once-predom- 
inant strength has been challenged and our 
once-predominant dollar battered. We have 



| \ 

' r 

November 4, 1974 


endured riots, assassinations, racial and gen- 
erational confrontations, a cultural revolu- 
tion, and Watergate. 

Yet we have surmounted these traumas, 
showing a resiliency that inspires the envy 
of others. Our democratic institutions have 
come through unprecedented trials with 
fresh vitality. We have recorded historic in- 
ternational achievements even as we tailor 
our role to new conditions. We are still the 
most advanced nation in the world, on the 
frontiers of the most important revolutions 
of our era — in technology, agriculture, com- 
munications, health. America can go forward 
if Americans can again reach for shared per- 
ceptions and exult in shared purposes. 

Alexis de Tocqueville, the 19th-century ob- 
server of the American scene, once wrote, 
". . . it is especially in the conduct of their 
foreign relations that democracies appear to 
me decidedly inferior . . . ." There is, he said, 
a "propensity that induces democracies to 
obey impulse rather than prudence, and to 
abandon a mature design for the gratifica- 
tion of a momentary passion." 

I believe we can prove De Tocqueville 

To do so, we must live comfortably with 
both our limits and our possibilities. A people 
torn between excessive pride and excessive 
pessimism, a nation torn between expecting 
too much of power and being ashamed of it, 
cannot flourish in a world of competing val- 
ues and linked destinies. 

For most of our history we believed that 
America was good for the world. Recently 
we have reined in the excess involvement 
that flowed from this perspective. 

But we must not now yield to the view 
that America is bad for the world. We need 
a steadier course. 

As a mature nation we must learn that 
success is a process and not a final condition, 
that exertion is perpetual and must be an 
end in itself. 

In this way America can thrive in an age 
of ambiguity. 

In this way America can rediscover peace 
at home and fully contribute to peace in the 

U.S. Opposes Participation of PLO 
in U.N. General Assembly Debate 

Following is a statement made in the U.N. 
General Assembly on October Ik by U.S. 
Representative John Scali, together with the 
text of a resolution adopted by the Assembly 
that day. 


USUN press release 135 dated October 14 

It should be clear from many statements 
by my government over the past months and 
years that our vote today in no way reflects 
a lack of understanding or sympathy for the 
very real concerns and yearning for justice 
of the Palestinian people. Rather, it reflects 
our consistent conviction that the justice 
they seek will come only as part of a peace 
that is just for all the parties. This just 
peace must be negotiated with utmost care 
and must lead to an overall settlement of the 
Arab-Israeli conflict, at the heart of which 
we all recognize lies the Palestinian problem. 

Our vote also reflects a deep concern that 
the resolution before us could be interpreted 
by some as prejudging that negotiating proc- 
ess and make a durable settlement more 
difficult to achieve. In that sense, the reso- 
lution could have the ultimate effect of work- 
ing against the interests of a Palestinian 

The world knows how tirelessly we have 
sought to move the Middle East from the 
scourge of war to the path of peace. For 
us to have voted other than we did would 
be inconsistent with and harmful to our 
efforts to help promote a just and lasting 
peace that takes into account the legitimate 
needs of all the states and peoples in the 
Middle East. 

I should also like to express my govern- 
ment's profound concern over the resolution's 
departure from the longstanding precedent 
that only representatives of governments 
should be allowed to participate in plenary 
deliberations. Have we created a dangerous 


Department of State Bulletin 

precedent which may return to haunt this 
organization — perhaps cripple its effective- 

Mr. President, I want to make clear that 
the only basis for a just negotiated settlement 
is and must remain Security Council Resolu- 
tions 242 and 338. The resolution passed 
today cannot alter the basis, and our efforts 
will go forward in that established and widely 
accepted framework. 


The General Assembly, 

Considering that the Palestinian people is the 
principal party to the question of Palestine, 

Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization, the 
representative of the Palestinian people, to partici- 
pate in the deliberations of the General Assembly 
on the question of Palestine in plenary meetings. 

United Nations Documents: 
A Selected Bibliography 

Mimeographed or processed documents (such as those 
listed below) may be consulted at depository libraries 
in the United States. U.N. printed publications may 
be purchased from the Sales Section of the United 
Nations, United Nations Plaza, N.Y. 10017. 

World Population Conference 

World Population Conference background papers: 

Fertility trends in the world. Prepared by the 
U.N. Secretariat. E/CONF.60/CBP/16. April 
3, 1974. 28 pp. 

Demographic trends in the world and its major 
regions, 1950-1970. Prepared by the U.N. Sec- 
retariat. E/CONF.60/CBP/14. April 16, 1974. 
35 pp. 

World and regional population prospects. Pre- 
pared by the U.N. Secretariat. E/CONF.60/ 
CBP/15. April 16, 1974. 33 pp. 

International migration trends, 1950-1970. Pre- 
pared by the U.N. Secretariat. E/CONF.60/ 
CBP/18. May 22, 1974. 28 pp. 

The availability of demographic statistics around 
the world. Prepared by the Statistical Office 
of the United Nations. E/CONF.60/CBP/27. 
May 22, 1974. 28 pp. 

1 U.N. doc. A/RES/3210 (XXIX) ; adopted by the 
Assembly on Oct. 14 by a vote of 105 to 4 (U.S.), 
with 20 abstentions. 

November 4, 1974 

U.S. and Poland Sign Agreements 
During Visit of First Secretary 

Following are Department announcements 
issued October 8 concerning agreements be- 
tween the United States and Poland signed 
that day. 


Press release 398D dated October 8 

Secretary of State Kissinger and Minister 
of Foreign Affairs of the Polish People's Re- 
public Stefan Olszowski signed on October 8 
at Washington an income tax convention be- 
tween the United States and the Polish Peo- 
ple's Republic. 

The tax convention seeks to promote eco- 
nomic and cultural relations between the two 
countries by removing tax barriers to the 
flow of investment. 

The new treaty is similar to other recent 
U.S. tax conventions. It incorporates the 
same basic principles with respect to the tax- 
ation of business income, personal service 
income, and income from investments and in- 
cludes provisions for nondiscriminatory tax 
treatment and for reciprocal administrative 

Under the new convention, profits derived 
by a resident of either country would be sub- 
ject to tax by the other country only to the 
extent that the profits are attributable to a 
"permanent establishment" in that other 
country. Employees would not be taxable by 
the other country on their personal service 
income unless the services were performed 
there during a stay lasting longer than six 
months of the year. The rates of tax imposed 
on dividends, interest, and royalties derived 
by residents of the other country would be 
reciprocally limited to 15 percent on port- 
folio dividends, 5 percent on dividends from 
a shareholding of 10 percent or more, zero 
(exemption) on interest, and 10 percent on 
royalties and film rentals. In the absence of 
the convention, the U.S. tax rate would be 30 
percent of the gross amount, and the Polish 




tax, imposed at graduated rates, also reaches 
30 percent of the gross amount. 

The tax convention is subject to approval 
by the U.S. Senate. It would take effect as of 
January 1, 1974, and would remain in force 
for a minimum of five years. It then would 
continue in force indefinitely, unless termi- 
nated by either nation. 


Press release 398A dated October 8 

Secretary of State Kissinger and Deputy 
Prime Minister of the Polish People's Repub- 
lic Dr. Mieczyslaw Jagielski signed on Oc- 
tober 8 at Washington an agreement between 
the Governments of the United States and 
Poland providing for joint funding of their 
cooperative program in science and technol- 

The agreement grew out of discussions 
held by President Nixon and Secretary of 
State Rogers in Warsaw in 1972 and is in 
furtherance of the U.S.-Polish agreement on 
cooperation in science and technology signed 
on October 31, 1972. 

The new agreement provides for the es- 
tablishment of the Marie Sklodowska Curie 
Fund. The U.S. share in the Fund, most of 
which was previously allocated for research 
in Poland, will be 558 million zlotys (one of- 
ficial exchange rate is $1.00 = 19.92 zlotys). 
While most of this sum has already been ear- 
marked, this total includes new zlotys for 
joint energy research. Under this agreement, 
the Government of Poland will match this 
558 million zlotys, which we own from ear- 
lier U.S. Public Law 480 programs, with an 
equal sum. Before the new agreement, the 
research was funded entirely by U.S.-owned 
zlotys. The joint funding agreement will ex- 
tend to December 31, 1981. A joint U.S.- 
Polish Board will establish the broad areas 
of research to be financed by the Fund. 

At least one-third of the amount is to be 
used to finance energy and energy-related re- 
search. The Fund will also be used to finance 
ongoing and new research projects in medi- 
cine, health, environmental protection, agri- 

culture, transportation, and other fields. Some 
of these projects are also the subject of the 
agreement for cooperation in coal research, 
the agreement on cooperation in the field of 
health, and the agreement on environmental 
protection, all signed October 8. 

The agreement strengthens the basis of 
the cooperative efforts of the scientists of the 
two countries which have been underway 
since the early 1960's. Some examples of on- 
going research include investigations relat- 
ing to brain damage, evaluation of soybean 
protein concentrate additives, development of 
frost- and drought-resistant hybrid plants, 
reclamation of alkaline ash piles to reduce 
pollution while producing a usable product, 
and further research relating to important 
Polish contributions to the theory of grav- 
ity. The most important new research will 
be in the fields of coal utilization and coal 


Press release 398E dated October 8 

Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel- 
fare Caspar Weinberger and Deputy Prime 
Minister of the Polish People's Republic Dr. 
Mieczyslaw Jagielski signed on October 8 at 
Washington an agreement between the Gov- 
ernments of the United States and Poland to 
promote cooperation in the field of health. 
Attending the ceremony were Polish United 
Workers' Party First Secretary Edward Gie- 
rek and Secretary of State Kissinger. 

The agreement established a Joint Com- 
mittee for Cooperation in the Field of Health 
to determine the mechanisms and policy for 
the program under the agreement. The Joint 
Committee will serve to direct an expanded 
program of cooperative activities, including 
the exchange of junior and senior scientists, 
the facilitation of direct institute-to-institute 
relationships, the exchange of scientific and 
technical publications, the organization of 
joint scientific symposia and conferences, and 
the exchange of equipment, drugs, and bio- 

This agreement is a reaffirmation and 
strengthening of the successful bilateral co- 


Department of State Bulletin 

operation which has been ongoing less for- 
mally for the last 12 years. Since 1962, U.S. 
and Polish scientists have undertaken nu- 
merous cooperative research programs in a 
broad range of health areas, including those 
related to maternal and child health, cardio- 
vascular diseases, cancer, alcoholism, occu- 
pational and environmental health, neuro- 
logic and psychiatric disorders, rehabilita- 
tion, and infectious diseases. There are now 
89 ongoing research projects, of which 16 
were approved this past June. 

Joint research activities have served to in- 
crease direct exchange and information shar- 
ing between scientists of the two countries 
and have resulted in some significant medi- 
cal advances. One notable example is a proj- 
ect in which HEW's Social and Rehabilitation 
Service collaborated with doctors at the Kon- 
stancin Rehabilitation Center near Warsaw, 
leading to the development at that center of a 
technique for immediate postsurgical fitting 
of artificial legs which thereby makes it pos- 
sible for a patient to walk within a short pe- 
riod of time after surgery. This technique 
has subsequently been adopted in the United 
States. This medical cooperation also recently 
included the development of the Krakow hos- 
pital for mothers and children, now consid- 
ered one of the most dynamic of such institu- 
tions in Poland. 


Press release 398B dated October 8 

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Clayton 
Yeutter and First Deputy Minister of Trade 
and Maritime Economy of the Polish Peo- 
ple's Republic Henryk Kisiel signed on Oc- 
tober 8 at Washington a joint statement on 
the development of agricultural trade be- 
tween the United States and Poland. Attend- 
ing the ceremony were Polish United Work- 
ers' Party First Secretary Edward Gierek 
and Secretary of State Kissinger. The state- 
ment was negotiated at the fourth session 
of the U.S.-Polish Joint Commission for 
Trade, which took place in Washington Sep- 
tember 9-10. 

November 4, 1974 

Under provisions of the joint statement, 
the two countries have agreed to exchange 
agricultural economic information — includ- 
ing forward estimates of supply and de- 
mand — to facilitate the growth of bilateral 
trade, to encourage the signing of long-term 
purchasing agreements between Polish for- 
eign trade enterprises and private U.S. ex- 
porters, to develop further the cooperation 
between veterinary services which has as- 
sisted the two countries in increasing trade 
turnover, and to continue to treat imports in 
each country in accordance with the most- 
favored-nation principle under the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. 

The two countries also agreed to form a 
permanent working group within the frame- 
work of the Joint Trade Commission to ex- 
change views on economic and trade matters 
and to explore areas for possible cooperation 
in various fields of agriculture. In addition, 
both countries expressed support of the up- 
coming multilateral trade negotiations and 
agreed that the joint statement will in no 
way prejudice or modify existing undertak- 
ings under the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade. 

The statement notes that U.S.-Polish agri- 
cultural trade spans a period of some 50 
years and has benefited the economies of 
both countries. In fiscal year 1974, U.S. ag- 
ricultural exports to Poland reached the rec- 
ord level of $306 million. Polish agricultural 
exports to the United States include hams 
and canned beef. Poland is America's largest 
agricultural trading partner in Eastern Eu- 


Press release 398F dated October 8 

The United States and Poland concluded 
on October 8 at Washington an agreement 
to expand and intensify cooperation between 
the two countries in environmental protec- 
tion and pollution abatement. Russell E. 
Train, Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and Professor Witold 
Trampczynski, Polish Ambassador to the 


United States, representing the Polish Min- 
istry of Land Economy and Environmental 
Protection, signed the agreement. Attending 
the ceremony were Polish United Workers' 
Party First Secretary Edward Gierek and 
Secretary of State Kissinger. 

The new agreement implements a more 
general accord signed in October 1972 which 
established a policy of cooperation in many 
fields of science and technology. The new 
agreement provides for future cooperation in 
a wide range of matters related to protect- 
ing and improving the environment. Of spe- 
cial interest are water and air pollution, pre- 
vention of further environmental degrada- 
tion, the effects of pollutants on human, 
plant, and animal life, noise abatement, con- 
trolling pollution associated with transpor- 
tation, radiation, and municipal and indus- 
trial wastes. The agreement calls for joint 
scientific and technical research, the exchange 
of specialists, data, and documents, and the 
organization of conferences and symposia. 

Administrator Train hailed the agreement 
as both an environmental and a political mile- 
stone. "It represents an irresistible process 
now underway to systematize and implement 
a multilateral and global approach to man's 
stewardship of the Earth," Mr. Train said. 
He added that the agreement also "marks 
the high point of cordial relations that have 
developed between the United States and Po- 
land over the past two decades." Mr. Train 
stated that the agreement exemplified a new 
spirit of international cooperation and con- 
cern about environmental matters. 


Press release 398C dated October 8 

The United States and Poland concluded 
on October 8 at Washington an agreement to 
cooperate in energy research and develop- 
ment, with particular emphasis on coal utili- 
zation and coal extraction. Kent Frizzell, 
Solicitor, Department of the Interior, and 

Benon Stranz, Deputy Minister of Mining 
and Power of the Polish People's Republic, 
signed the agreement. Attending the cere- 
mony were Polish United Workers' Party 
First Secretary Edward Gierek and Secre- 
tary of State Kissinger. 

The agreement grew from mutual recogni- 
tion that both countries need to make more 
effective use of their substantial solid fuel 
resources to meet their growing energy de- 
mands, and in a manner that will be envi- 
ronmentally satisfactory. It is an important 
new development in international energy co- 

The United States and Poland each have 
intensive research and development programs 
to extract coal more efficiently and to con- 
vert the product into a clean fuel at reason- 
able costs. Many of these programs have 
common objectives. Through the new coop- 
eration agreement, unnecessary duplication 
of research efforts will be avoided, valuable 
technologies will be shared, and new solutions 
will be sought to meet the universal demand 
for cleaner energy supplies. 

As a first step toward the agreement, the 
United States and Poland last summer ex- 
changed teams of coal research experts to 
study the energy research programs now un- 
derway in the two countries. These technical 
reviews showed that fuller cooperation could 
profitably be undertaken in coal liquefaction, 
coal gasification, magnetohydrodynamics, 
coal preparation, and improved coke manu- 

Coal extraction research areas to be stud- 
ied jointly cover the principles of mine plan- 
ning and design, methane drainage and utili- 
zation from underground workings, subsid- 
ence prediction and control, automation of 
longwall systems, and the control of rock, 
coal, and gas outburst and the collapse of 

This agreement will be implemented by 
joint research, the organization of joint sym- 
posia and seminars, exchange of research 
scientists and research results, and other 
forms of cooperation as needed to fulfill the 
requirements of the cooperation. 


Department of State Bulletin 

Current Treaty Actions 


Automotive Traffic 

Customs convention on the temporary importation 
of private road vehicles. Done at New York June 
4, 1954. Entered into force December 15, 1957. 
Accession deposited: Chile, August 15, 1974. 


Convention for the suppression of unlawful seizure 
of aircraft. Done at The Hague December 16, 
1970. Entered into force October 15, 1971. TIAS 

Ratification deposited: Federal Republic of Ger- 
many, October 11, 1974. 1 


International convention for safe containers (CSC), 
with annexes. Done at Geneva December 2, 1972." 
Accession deposited: German Democratic Repub- 
lic, (with statements and a declaration), Sep- 
tember 27, 1974. 


International convention for the prevention of pol- 
lution from ships, 1973, with protocols and an- 
nexes. Done at London November 2, 1973. 2 
Signature: Poland (subject to ratification), Octo- 
ber 2, 1974. 

Protocol relating to intervention on the high seas in 
cases of marine pollution by substances other than 
oil. Done at London November 2, 1973. a 
Signature: Poland (subject to ratification), Octo- 
ber 2, 1974. 


Telegraph regulations, with appendices, annex, and 
final protocol. Done at Geneva April 11, 1973. En- 
tered into force September 1, 1974. 3 
Notification of approval: Canada, July 10, 1974; 
Rwanda, July 16, 1974; Spain, July 8, 1974. 

Telephone regulations, with appendices and final 
protocol. Done at Geneva April 11, 1973. Entered 
into force September 1, 1974. 3 
Notification of approval: Canada, July 10, 1974; 
Rwanda, July 16, 1974; Spain, July 8, 1974. 



Loan agreement for financing manufacture and ac- 
quisition by Bangladesh of fertilizer, pesticides, 
and other agricultural inputs, with annex. Signed 
at Dacca September 19, 1974. Entered into force 
September 19, 1974. 

International Committee of the Red Cross 

Amendment to the grant agreement of November 1, 
1973, to provide assistance to refugees, displaced 
persons, and war victims in the Republic of Viet- 
Nam, Laos, and the Khmer Republic. Effected by 
U.S. letter of July 30, 1974. Entered into force 
July 30, 1974. 

Agreement amending the grant agreement of No- 
vember 1, 1973, to provide assistance to refugees, 
displaced persons, and war victims in the Repub- 
lic of Viet-Nam, Laos, and the Khmer Republic. 
Signed at Geneva and Washington August 22 and 
September 6, 1974. Entered into force September 
6, 1974. 


'Applicable to Berlin (West), subject to under- 
* Not in force. 
' Not in force for the United States. 

Bureau of Oceans and International 
Environmental and Scientific Affairs 

Press release 424 dated October 15 

The Department's establishment of a Bureau of 
Oceans and International Environmental and Scien- 
tific Affairs became effective on October 14. The new 
Bureau, which is conformable with Public Law 93-126 
of October 18, 1973, will bring together the Depart- 
ment's activities and responsibilities relating to all 
international scientific, technological, and environ- 
mental affairs including weather matters, the oceans, 
atmosphere, outer space, fisheries, wildlife, conser- 
vation, health, population, and associated subjects. 
It will be headed by an Assistant Secretary. 

Pending the appointment of the Assistant Secre- 
tary, Thomas A. Clingan, Jr., who is Deputy Assist- 
ant Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries Affairs, will 
be the Acting Assistant Secretary. Within the Bu- 
reau, John V. N. Granger will be Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Scientific and Technological Affairs, 
and Christian A. Herter, Jr., will be Deputy Assis- 
tant Secretary for Environmental and Population 
Affairs. Dr. Granger and Mr. Herter have hitherto 
been the senior officers in the Bureau of Internation- 
al Scientific and Technological Affairs. 

The new Bureau's responsibilities for technologi- 
cal affairs will include atomic energy and energy- 
related research and development, space technology, 
and other advanced technological developments ex- 
cept those which are defense related. Its functions 
are to include the development of comprehensive and 
coherent U.S. policy in its designated areas of con- 
cern. It will be the central point of contact on such 
matters with other U.S. Government agencies and 
will provide foreign policy guidance and coordina- 


November 4, 1974 


tion for the execution of international scientific and 
technological programs. 

In oceans and fisheries the new Bureau will as- 
sume the responsibilities of the Coordinator of Ocean 
Affairs and Special Assistant for Fisheries and 
Wildlife. These include numerous bilateral agree- 
ments and international organizations dealing with 
fisheries and marine science. The creation of the 
new Bureau will give greater emphasis to the im- 
portance of the difficult problems encountered in 
these areas. The Bureau will also permit a greater 
focus on certain wildlife, conservation, and marine 
pollution matters which had been dealt with by sep- 
arate offices and which will now be together within 
the Bureau. 

By amalgamating the handling of oceans, environ- 
mental, scientific, and technological problems hither- 
to assigned to separate units, the new Bureau is 
designed to give new weight to the consideration 
and administration of our increasing involvement 
in science and environment-associated matters re- 
lating to foreign affairs. 


1949 "Foreign Relations" Volume 
on Germany and Austria Released 

Press release 372 dated September 23 (for release September 30) 

The Department of State released on September 
30 "Foreign Relations of the United States," 1949, 
volume III, "Council of Foreign Ministers; Germany 
and Austria." The "Foreign Relations" series has 
been published continuously since 1861 as the official 
record of American foreign policy. The volume now 
released is the first to be published of nine volumes 
documenting American foreign policy during the year 

This volume of 1,324 pages presents documenta- 
tion — hitherto unpublished and of the highest classi- 
fication — on the problems of divided Germany and 
Austria. Primary emphasis is on relations among the 
four occupying powers, the establishment of the Fed- 
eral Republic of Germany, resolution of the Berlin 
crisis, the complicated issues of reparations and res- 
titution from Germany, and efforts to negotiate a 
treaty on the status of Austria. The volume also in- 
cludes comprehensive documentation on the meetings 
at Paris of the quadripartite Council of Foreign Min- 
isters as well as on efforts to maintain the independ- 
ence and integrity of Austria. President Truman, 
Secretary of State Acheson, and such personages as 


Ernest Bevin, Robert Schuman, Andrei Vyshinsky, 
Konrad Adenauer, John J. McCloy, Lucius D. Clay, 
Robert D. Murphy, and Lewis W. Douglas figure 
prominently in the events documented in the volume. 
The "Foreign Relations" volumes are prepared by 
the Historical Office, Bureau of Public Affairs. Vol- 
ume III for 1949 (Department of State publication 
8752; GPO cat. no. Sl.l:949/v. Ill) may be purchased 
for $14.55 (domestic postpaid). Checks or money or- 
ders should be made payable to the Superintendent 
of Documents and sent to the U.S. Government Book- 
store, Department of State, Washington, D.C. 20520. 

Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: October 14-20 

Press releases may be obtained from the Of- 
fice of Press Relations, Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 

Releases issued prior to October 14 which 
appear in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 
372 of September 23, 398A-398F of October 
8, 399 of October 10, 404 of October 10, 405, 
407, and 408 of October 11, and 412 of October 


































Kissinger : departure, Aqaba, 
Oct. 12. 

Kissinger, Allon: arrival, Tel 
Aviv, Oct. 12. 

Kissinger, Allon : departure,. Tel 
Aviv, Oct. 13. 

Kissinger, Saqqaf : departure, 
Riyadh, Oct. 13. 

Kissinger: arrival, Cairo, Oct. 

Kissinger, Sadat: remarks fol- 
lowing meeting, Oct. 14. 

Kissinger: departure, Cairo, 
Oct. 14. 

Kissinger : departure, Damas- 
cus, Oct. 14. 

Kissinger: arrival, Algiers, Oct. 

Kissinger: departure, Algiers. 

Bureau of Oceans and Interna- 
tional Environmental and Sci- 
entific Affairs established, Oct. 

Kissinger: arrival, Rabat. 

Kissinger: departure, Rabat. 

Kissinger: Alfred E. Smith din- 
ner, New York. 

Kissinger: arrival, Washington, 
Oct. 15. 

Notice of time for filing claims 
against Egypt by U.S. nation- 

Rush sworn in as Ambassador 
to France (biographic data). 

Easum to visit nine African 

* Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the Bulletin. 

Department of State Bulletin 

INDEX November 4,1974 Vol. LXXI, No. 1845 

Agriculture. U.S. and Poland Sign Agree- 
ments During Visit of First Secretary (De- 
partment announcements) 623 

Algeria. Secretary Kissinger Visits Six Arab 
Nations and Israel (Ford, Allon, Kissinger, 
Sadat, Saqqaf) 607 


America's Purposes in an Ambiguous Age 

(Lord) 617 

Annual Meeting of SEATO Council Held at 
New York (press statement) 616 

Department and Foreign Service. Bureau of 
Oceans and International Environmental 
and Scientific Affairs 627 

Economic Affairs 

America's Purposes in an Ambiguous Age 

(Lord) 617 

First Secretary Gierek of the Polish United 
Workers' Party Visits the United States 
(Ford, Gierek, joint statements, joint com- 
munique) 597 

U.S. and Poland Sign Agreements During 
Visit of First Secretary (Department an- 
nouncements) 623 

Egypt. Secretary Kissinger Visits Six Arab 
Nations and Israel (Ford, Allon, Kissinger, 
Sadat, Saqqaf) 607 

Energy. U.S. and Poland Sign Agreements 
During Visit of First Secretary (Depart- 
ment announcements) 623 

Environment. U.S. and Poland Sign Agree- 
ments During Visit of First Secretary (De- 
partment announcements) 623 

Europe. America's Purposes in an Ambiguous 
Age (Lord) 617 

Health. U.S. and Poland Sign Agreements 
During Visit of First Secretary (Depart- 
ment announcements) 623 

International Conferences and Organizations. 

Annual Meeting of SEATO Council Held at 

New York (press statement) 616 

Israel. Secretary Kissinger Visits Six Arab 
Nations and Israel (Ford, Allon, Kissinger, 
Sadat, Saqqaf) 607 

Jordan. Secretary Kissinger Visits Six Arab 
Nations and Israel (Ford, Allon, Kissinger, 
Sadat, Saqqaf) 607 

Middle East. U.S. Opposes Participation of 
PLO in U.N. General Assembly Debate 
(Scali, text of resolution) 622 

Military Affairs. America's Purposes in an 
Ambiguous Age (Lord) 617 

Morocco. Secretary Kissinger Visits Six Arab 
Nations and Israel (Ford, Allon, Kissinger, 
Sadat, Saqqaf) 607 


First Secretary Gierek of the Polish United 
Workers' Party Visits the United States 
(Ford, Gierek, joint statements, joint com- 
munique) 597 

U.S. and Poland Sign Agreements During 
Visit of First Secretary (Department an- 
nouncements) 623 

Presidential Documents 

First Secretary Gierek of the Polish United 

Workers' Party Visits the United States . 597 

President Ford Signs Defense Bill; Cautions 

on Viet-Nam Funding 616 

Secretary Kissinger Visits Six Arab Nations 

and Israel 607 

Publications. 1949 "Foreign Relations" Vol- 
ume on Germany and Austria Released . . 628 

Saudi Arabia. Secretary Kissinger Visits Six 
Arab Nations and Israel (Ford, Allon, Kis- 
singer, Sadat, Saqqaf) 607 

Science. U.S. and Poland Sign Agreements 
During Visit of First Secretary (Depart- 
ment announcements) 623 

Syria. Secretary Kissinger Visits Six Arab 
Nations and Israel (Ford, Allon, Kissinger, 
Sadat, Saqqaf) 607 

Treaty Information 

Current Treaty Actions 627 

U.S. and Poland Sign Agreements During 
Visit of First Secretary (Department an- 
nouncements) 623 

United Nations 

United Nations Documents 623 

U.S. Opposes Participation of PLO in U.N. 
General Assembly Debate (Scali, text of 
resolution) 622 

Viet-Nam. President Ford Signs Defense Bill; 

Cautions on Viet-Nam Funding (statement) 616 

Name Index 

Allon, Yigal 610, 611 

Ford, President 597,607,616 

Gierek, Edward 597 

Kissinger, Secretary 607 

Lord, Winston 617 

Sadat, Anwar al- 608,613 

Saqqaf, Umar al- 611 

Scali, John 622 

Superintendent of Documents 
U.S. government printing office 




Special Fourth-Clou Rale 





Subscription Renewals: To insure uninterrupted 
service, please renew your subscription promptly 
when you receive the expiration notice from the 
Superintendent of Documents. Due to the time re- 
quired to process renewals, notices are sent out 3 
months in advance of the expiration date. Any prob- 
lems involving your subscription will receive im- 
mediate attention if you write to: Director, Office 
of Media Services (PA/MS), Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 

?2 7. ^S~ 





Volume LXXI • No. 1846 • November 11, 1974 



Address by Secretary Kissinger 6U3 

Address by Philander P. Claxton, Jr. 6J+9 



For index see inside back cover 


DEC" 6 197 



Vol. LXXI, No. 1846 
November 11, 1974 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


52 issues plus semiannual indexes, 

domestic $29.80, foreign $37.25 

Single copy 60 cents 

Use of funds for printing this publication 

approved by the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (January 29, 1971). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 

copyrighted and items contained herein may be 

reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 

appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 

the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, provides the public and 
interested agencies of the government 
with information on developments in 
the field of U.S. foreign relations and 
on the work of the Department and 
the Foreign Service. 
The BULLETIN includes selected 
press releases on foreign policy, issued 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements, addresses, 
and news conferences of the President 
and the Secretary of State and other 
officers of the Department, as well as 
special articles on various phases of 
international affairs and the functions 
of the Department. Information is 
included concerning treaties and inter- 
national agreements to which the 
United States is or may become a 
party and on treaties of general inter- 
national interest. 

Publications of the Department of 
State, United Nations documents, and 
legislative material in the field of 
international relations are also listed. 

Secretary Kissinger Interviewed for New York Times 

Following is the transcript of an interview 
with Secretary Kissinger by James Reston 
on October 5 and 6 as published in the New 
York Times on October 13. 

Mr. Reston: You have been sounding 
rather pessimistic in the last few weeks. Are 
you worried about the state of the West? 

Secretary Kissinger: I don't mean to sound 
pessimistic. I think that there are huge prob- 
lems before us, and I'm trying to define them. 
I believe that the problems are soluble, but 
they require a major effort and, in some 
areas, new approaches, but I'm not pessimis- 
tic about the ability to solve them. We have — 

Q. Could I interrupt there to say that in 
reading what you have written in the past, I 
have a sense of pessimism in your writings, 
even of tragedy. Do you regard your thought 
as being essentially tragic, when you look at 
the last two generations? 

Secretary Kissinger: I think of myself as 
a historian more than as a statesman. As a 
historian, you have to be conscious of the fact 
that every civilization that has ever existed 
has ultimately collapsed. 

History is a tale of efforts that failed, of 
aspirations that weren't realized, of wishes 
that were fulfilled and then turned out to be 
different from what one expected. So, as a 
historian, one has to live with a sense of the 
inevitability of tragedy; as a statesman, one 
has to act on the assumption that problems 
must be solved. 

Each generation lives in time, and even 
though ultimately perhaps societies have all 
suffered a decline, that is of no help to any 
one generation, and the decline is usually 

traceable to a loss of creativity and inspira- 
tion and therefore avoidable. 

It is probably true that, insofar as I think 
historically, I must look at the tragedies that 
have occurred. Insofar as I act, my motive 
force, of which I am conscious, it is to try to 
avoid them. 

Q. Don't we have to bring this problem 
down to practical points, the difference be- 
tween the ideals of a republic and what can 
be done? Is there a conflict now in America 
between the ideals of foreign policy that you 
see for the order of the world and what can 
actually be done in terms of public under- 
standing and in actual votes in the Congress 
of the United States ? 

Secretary Kissinger: I think almost every 
nation right now has the problem of recon- 
ciling its domestic view of itself with the in- 
ternational problem because every nation has 
to live on so many levels. 

Certainly in every non-Communist na- 
tion — and probably even in Communist na- 
tions — public opinion in one way or another is 
becoming more and more important. But 
what public opinion is conscious of are the 
day-to-day problems of life. The remoter is- 
sues, geographically and in time, do not im- 
pinge on the average citizen. 

In foreign policy, the most difficult issues 
are those whose necessity you cannot prove 
when the decisions are made. You act on the 
basis of an assessment that in the nature of 
things is a guess, so that public opinion 
knows, usually, only when it is too late to 
act, when some catastrophe has become over- 

The necessity of the measures one takes to 
avoid the catastrophe can almost never be 


ii • 

November 11, 1974 


proved. For that reason you require a great 
deal, or at least a certain amount, of confi- 
dence in leadership; and that becomes diffi- 
cult in all societies. 

But, speaking of the United States, if one 
looks at the crises through which America 
has gone over the last decade — the assassina- 
tions, the Viet-Nam war, Watergate — it is 
very difficult to establish the relationship of 

Then the United States also has particular 
problems in terms of its historical experience. 
We never had to face the problem of security 
until the end of the Second World War, so we 
could afford to be very idealistic and insist on 
the pure implementation of our maxims. 

To the average countries that were less 
favored, the problems of foreign policy have 
usually appeared in a much more complicated 
form ; that is, their morality could not be ex- 
pressed in absolute terms. Their morality had 
to give the sense of inward security neces- 
sary to act step by step in less than perfect 

We are now in a similar position, and 
therefore there is an almost instinctive re- 
bellion in America against the pragmatic as- 
pect of foreign policy that is security ori- 
ented, that achieves finite objectives, that 
seeks to settle for the best attainable rather 
than for the best. In this sense, we are hav- 
ing domestic problems. 

On the other hand, there is a strain in 
America which is, curiously, extremely rele- 
vant to this world. We are challenged by the 
huge problems — peace and war, energy, food 
— and we have a real belief in interdepend- 
ence; it is not just a slogan. 

The solution of these problems really comes 
quite naturally to Americans; first, because 
they believe that every problem is soluble; 
secondly, because they are at ease with re- 
doing the world, and the old frontier men- 
tality really does find an expression, and even 
the old idealism finds a way to express itself. 

In what other country could a leader say, 
"We are going to solve energy ; we're going 
to solve food ; we're going to solve the prob- 
lem of nuclear war," and be taken seriously? 
So I think it is true that there are strains in 

our domestic debate; I think it is also true 
that there are many positive aspects in our 
domestic debate that can help us reach these 
larger goals. 

Situation in Europe Today 

Q. Are you worried when you see the situ- 
ation in Europe today? What's going on in 
Portugal, the fragility of Italy, the almost 
state of war between two members of the al- 
liance, Turkey and Greece. Surely, from the 
point of view of Moscow, this looks like a 
fulfillment of their prophecy of the internal 
contradictions of the Western world. 

Secretary Kissinger: One of the troubles 
of the Western societies is that they are ba- 
sically satisfied with the status quo, so that 
when you have governments like the previous 
government in Portugal, or the previous gov- 
ernment in Greece, the tendency is not to 
change it. 

I think that's a mistaken conception. But 
what comes after is so uncertain — and we 
really lack a philosophy for how to shape a 
new political evolution — that one tends to 
leave well enough alone. In the process, the 
political base erodes invisibly, and then, 
when the changes occur suddenly, there is no 
real base for a democratic, liberal, humane 
evolution — or at least it can be put together 
only with great difficulty. 

So, in Portugal, after 50 years of authori- 
tarian rule, the Communist Party was the 
best organized, most purposeful opposition 
and therefore has a very large influence on 
Portugal's contemporary orientation. 

In Greece there are also massive domestic 
pressures. The problem of Italy and other 
countries is different, in that you have there 
a residual vote that has never been reduced 
by prosperity and goes to the Communists. 
This shows that there is a significant per- 
centage of the population that does not con- ' 
sider itself part of the system. 

If you take the authoritarian parties in 
Italy on the left and the right, you have only 
about 60 percent of the spectrum to work 
with for a democratic policy. When that is 


Department of State Bulletin 

split you have an inherent weakness; and 
it will be split, because that's the nature of 
the democratic process. 

Q. When you came to Washi?igton in the 
first place after your study of history, it was 
said that you had a concept of how to achieve 
the order of the ivorld, and yet in the last 
years, since you have been here, the tendency 
has been to say that you have not defined 
your concept but that actually what you have 
been doing is negotiating pragmatic prob- 
lems and not really dealing with the concept 
or making clear the concept. What is that 
concept ? First of all, is the criticism correct, 
and second, what is the concept that you see? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, I think you will 
find few officials who will tell you that any 
criticism you can make of them is correct, 
but I don't think the criticism is quite cor- 
rect. I do not have the choice, in any position, 
between imposing a theoretical order or ne- 
gotiating, because if you don't solve imme- 
diate problems you can never solve long-term 

If you act creatively you should be able to 
use crises to move the world toward the 
structural solutions that are necessary. In 
fact, very often the crises themselves are a 
symptom of the need for a structural rear- 

I faced a number of problems partly of 
perception and partly of structure. I feel it 
is essential that when the United States acts 
in foreign policy that it understand first 
what the American national interest is in re- 
lation to the problem. And to define that, 
America has to know what the world inter- 
est is, not only in relation to the specific 
problem but in relation to the historical evo- 
lution from which any solution of a problem 

So I have tried — historians will have to 
judge with what success — to understand the 
forces that are at work in this period. My 
associates will confirm that when we tackle a 
problem we spend the greatest part of our 
time at the beginning trying to relate it to 
where America and the world ought to go 
before we ever discuss tactics. 

November 11, 1974 

I think somebody would have to go through 
my speeches and press conferences to see to 
what extent I have articulated general prop- 
ositions. I don't think I should be the judge 
of this here. 

Debate Over Nature of Consultation With Europe 

Q. When you made your speech at the 
Waldorf, I regarded it at that time as some- 
thing equivalent almost to the offer of the 
Marshall plan. Yet we got no real response 
from Europe. Even xohen you went to London 
and talked about interdependence, there was 
no response. Now, something was wrong 
there. Could you define it? 

Secretary Kissinger: There are always at 
least two aspects to any problem. One is your 
definition of the problem; second, how you 
solve it: — are you doing it correctly? 

I believe that the issues that I've attempted 
to define are serious issues. Take my Waldorf 
speech, the so-called year of Europe speech. 1 
It came at a period when we had opened to 
China and opened to the Soviet Union and 
when we^had ended the Viet-Nam war. 

Until we had accomplished at least some of 
those objectives, I did not see how a creative 
period of relationship with Europe would be 
possible, because the disagreement with our 
Viet-Nam policy in Europe was too deep. 
The fear of nuclear confrontation was too 
great, as was the fear that the United States 
was somehow to blame for this state of hos- 
tility in the world. 

So in early 1973 I thought the time was op- 
portune to move toward a serious dialogue 
with Europe, and I thought it was all the 
more essential because I did not want suc- 
cess to become identified in the public con- 
sciousness only with relations with adver- 
saries, and I felt that the old Atlantic rela- 
tionship would over a period of time become 
so much taken for granted and so much the 
province of an older generation that the next 
generation would consider it as something 
not relevant to itself. 

1 For text of the address, made at New York on 
Apr. 23, 1973, see Bulletin of May 14, 1973, p. 593. 



I think that this perception was essentially 
correct. Why did it lead to this intense dia- 
logue? One reason is that, at that particular 
moment, Europe was enormously absorbed 
with itself. Every European country, it soon 
became apparent, had a leadership crisis of 
its own and was trying to sort out its own do- 
mestic problems. Beyond that, Europe was 
very much occupied in forming its own iden- 
tity, and it had so much difficulty in doing so 
that any greater conception seemed a threat 
to whatever autonomy they had so painfully 
wrested from their deliberations. 

So we became involved in an abstruse the- 
oretical debate over the nature of consulta- 
tion, something that could never be written 
down, because you can't wave a paper at 
somebody and tell him he's obliged to consult 
if he doesn't want to consult. 

Then the Middle East war occurred, and 
that had a tendency to emphasize national 
frustrations, so that the larger dialogue that 
I had sought took a long time to get started ; 
but finally the end result was pretty close to 
what we had asked, though not completely in 
the spirit I had hoped to evoke. We got the 
documents we wanted, but we didn't get the 
spirit of creativity that, for example, the 
Marshall offer evoked. 

Now, similarly, with the Pilgrim speech in 
London. 2 It was not received very warmly, 
because, again, it was looked at very much 
from the national point of view. Nevertheless, 
events have moved us inevitably in that di- 
rection. The emergency sharing program 
which seemed revolutionary in February has 
now been accepted by all the countries. Even 
France, I hope, will find some way of relat- 
ing itself to it. 

And we are now engaged in discussions 
which will go far beyond what we could talk 
about last year. In the late 1940's the mere 
fact that the United States was willing to 
commit itself was a tremendous event. Now 
this is probably not enough, and our aspira- 
tions have to be expressed in action rather 
than in debate. 

2 For text of the address, made on Dec. 12, 1973, 
see Bulletin of Dec. 31, 1973, p. 777. 

Need for a National Understanding 

Q. On that point, when you offer, as a ba- 
sis for discussion with the Europeans and 
the rest of the world, a sharing of oil in a 
crisis, do you believe that the spirit of this 
country will accept it? When you come down 
to a question of producing oil for other coun- 
tries who are in worse shape than we are, is 
it politically possible in this country to do it? 

Secretary Kissinger: There is undoubtedly 
a profound disillusionment in America with 
foreign involvement in general. We have car- 
ried the burden for a generation. In fact, if 
you go back to the beginning of World War 
II, it doesn't seem to end. Most programs 
have been sold to Americans with the argu- 
ment that they would mean an end of exer- 
tion. Now we have to convince Americans 
that there will never be an end to exertion. 
That's a very difficult problem. 

And if you look at some of our recent de- 
bates you would have to say we could fail. I 
don't think that those in key positions at this 
particular moment have any real choice. At 
a minimum, we have to tell the American 
people what we think is needed. If they do 
not agree, at least they will know 10 years 
from now, if there is a catastrophe, what 
happened. And then there is a chance of re- 
storing a sense of direction. But if 10 years 
from now there is a catastrophe and people 
say, "Why didn't somebody tell us about this, 
and why didn't they ask us to do what they 
should have foreseen?", then I think our 
whole system may be in difficulty. 

Q. That's a critical point because I don't 
think the country — if one may presume to 
think about what the country thinks — has 
the vaguest idea of what it is called upon to 
do. We are complaining about how the oil- 
producing nations are using their resources, 
and yet we have larger reserves of food in 
North America than the nations of the Mid- 
dle East have oil resources, and yet here 
we are now arguing our national interests. 
We are against high prices for oil, but we are 
still a very gluttonous, wasteful country. Can 
that be made clear? 


Department of State Bulletin 

Secretary Kissinger: I think it is fair 
to say that we ourselves — I say "we," those 
who have positions of responsibility at this 
moment — we ourselves are learning the 
magnitude of the challenges as we go along. 
In 1969, when I came to Washington, I re- 
member a study on the energy problem 
which proceeded from the assumption that 
there would always be an energy surplus. 
It wasn't conceivable that there would be a 
shortage of energy. 

Until 1972, we thought we had inex- 
haustible food surpluses, and the fact that 
we have to shape our policy deliberately to 
relate ourselves to the rest of the world did 
not really arise until 1973, when we did call 
for a world food conference. 

But you are right. We have to tell the 
American people what they are called upon 
to do. That is our biggest problem. It's our 
biggest challenge right now. And will they 
support it? I hope that they will. I am, in 
fact, confident that they will. 

Q. Can you define what those questions 
are that should be put to the country? What 
does the government want the responsible 
citizen to do? He hasn't had much lead from 
you and your colleagues and the government 
as to what you wish him to do. 

Secretary Kissinger: I am not sure that I 
agree with whether he has received leader- 
ship from my colleagues and me. I think it is 
also fair to say that the nature of our debate 
for many years now has been so bitter that 
it's hard to put forward a conception that 
doesn't immediately get ripped apart by an 
attack on motives. 

But leaving that aside, I think in foreign 
policy we need a national understanding of 
what is needed, what is meant by peace, and 
an understanding that we are living in a 
world in which peace cannot be imposed on 
others, which means that sometimes the out- 
comes must be less than perfect. I have been 
concerned about the detente debate because 
so often the issue is put in terms of — did the 
Soviets benefit from a particular deal? Of 
course, they must benefit, or they won't feel 
a stake in maintaining the resulting struc- 

November 11, 1974 

ture. So, we have to know what we mean by 
peace; we have to know what we mean by 
cooperation ; and we have above all to under- 
stand these big issues which we have been 
discussing, like energy and food, in which 
our actions will crucially determine what 
happens in the rest of the world. 

And of course what happens in the rest 
of the world will play back to us, so we 
cannot afford an isolated approach. If we try 
a solo effort in energy and as a result Italy 
collapses or Britain has a crisis, that is 
going to bring about so many political trans- 
formations that within a very brief period 
of time we would be affected in ways that 
even the average citizen would feel very 

On food, the same is true in reverse. We 
there have an opportunity to demonstrate 
that when we talk interdependence, we are 
not just talking an American desire to ex- 
ploit the resources of other nations. What 
we are saying is for our own benefit, of 
course. But it is also for the benefit of every- 
body else. Now, that requires many changes 
in our thinking. Of course, senior officials 
are always so busy with the day-to-day prob- 
lems that they always seem to think one can 
wait for a day or a week to articulate the 
bigger issues. 

It is also true that our people have been 
so preoccupied with domestic problems that 
it is not so easy to get attention for the 
longer term. 

Vision of the World 

Q. If we do not see this problem of inter- 
dependence, what's the vision that you have 
of the world? What will happen to Western 
civilization ? 

Secretary Kissinger: If we do not get a 
recognition of our interdependence, the 
Western civilization that we now have is 
almost certain to disintegrate, because it will 
first lead to a series of rivalries in which 
each region will try to maximize its own 
special advantages. That inevitably will lead 
to tests of strength of one sort or another. 
These will magnify domestic crises in many 


ii I* 




countries, and they will then move more and 
more to authoritarian models. 

I would expect then that we will certainly 
have crises which no leadership is able to 
deal with and probably military confronta- 
tions. But even if you don't have military 
confrontations, you will certainly, in my 
view, have systemic crises similar to those 
of the twenties and thirties, but under con- 
ditions when world consciousness has be- 
come global. 

Q. Well, now, that is your nightmare. 

Secretary Kissinger: That's right. 

Q. What are your hopes? We are halfway 
between the end of the last world war, a lit- 
tle more, and the end of the century. As a 
historian, and not as a Secretary of State, 
looking back, if one can, from the end of the 
century to this era, how can the nations find 
some way of living together or going beyond 
the nation-state to something else? 

Secretary Kissinger: Looking toward the 
end of the century, I would hope that Western 
Europe, Japan, and the United States would 
have found a way of not just overcoming the 
current economic crisis but turning it into 
something positive by understanding the re- 
sponsibilities they share for each other's 
progress and for developing cooperative poli- 
cies that are explicitly directed toward world 

This requires a degree of financial solidar- 
ity, a degree of equalizing burdens, and a de- 
gree of ability to set common goals that can- 
not be done on a purely national basis. This, 
incidentally, requires a united Europe, be- 
cause with a plethora of nation-states in Eu- 
rope we'll never be able to do this. 

In relation to the Soviet Union and Com- 
munist China, we should have achieved a po- 
sition, not of having overcome all our diffi- 
culties, but having reached a point where the 
solution of these difficulties by war becomes 
less and less conceivable and, over time, 
should have become inconceivable. 

This means that there must be a visible and 
dramatic downturn in the arms race. Other- 
wise that race itself is going to generate so 

many fears that it can be maintained only by 
a degree of public exhortation that is incon- 
sistent over a historic period with a policy 
of relaxation and maybe even with peace. 

The underdeveloped nations — the now un- 
derdeveloped nations — should by then have 
lost their sense of inferiority and should feel 
not that they have to extort, but that they 
should participate. Thus what I said earlier 
about the relationship between Western Eu- 
rope, the United States, and Japan should 
have begun to be institutionalized to embrace 
at least some of the key countries, and the 
Soviet Union and China must be related to 

Take the food problem. I do not believe 
that over an indefinite future, we can solve 
the problem of world food reserves if the 
Soviet Union and Communist China do not 
accept obligations of their own or if they 
simply rely on the rest of the world's produc- 
tion to solve their problems on an annual ba- 

Q. What shoidd they be doing? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, I think — and I 
will speak about that at the World Food Con- 
ference — we have to develop over the next 
5 to 10 years some conceptions of the reserves 
that should exist and the contribution that 
the major countries should make. Countries 
that will not participate should not then ask 
necessarily equal rights to participate in pur- 
chases of reserve stocks. But this is some- 
thing that requires further study. 

Q. Do you foresee in the next decade the 
possibility of political disarray in Europe 
and of enormous human tragedy in other 
parts of the world? 

Secretary Kissinger: I think we are deli- 
cately poised right now. I genuinely think 
that the next decade could either be a period 
that in retrospect will look like one of the 
great periods of human creativity, or it could 
be the beginning of extraordinary disarray. 

Q. Is it possible — and it is obviously a 
Scottish Calvinist point of view that the 
greatest hope of progress is adversity — that 


Department of State Bulletin 

we are now really up against economic, finan- 
cial, and social problems of such magnitude 
that we are suddenly being forced, even by 
inflation, into a view of life that could be 
more hope fid? 

Secretary Kissinger: While this period has 
more strain than, say, a decade ago, it has 
also infinitely more opportunities, because we 
really have no choice except to address our 
problems. Who would have thought of an in- 
ternational food policy or a world food con- 
ference 10 years ago, or could have been 
taken seriously if he had? Today, it is only a 
question of time until we develop it, and the 
real question is, will we develop it soon 
enough? I think we can. 

Q. Is there a danger that if we do not deal 
with the world problems that here at home 
we woxdd become so frustrated that we would 
retreat, not into the oldtime isolationism but 
into a kind of chauvinism that would make 
the ivhole question of world order really 
quite impossible? 

Secretary Kissinger: It is a big problem. 
There is such a tendency in America ; but at 
least part of our chauvinism is disappointed 
idealism, so it's always a question of whether 
one can evoke the idealism. 

Foreign Policy Decisionmaking 

Q. The charge is made, I think, that you 
have been so personal in the way in which 
you've dealt with the Department of State 
that you've not organized it; you've not put 
this great machine to work but actually 
you've replaced it with yourself. 

Secretary Kissinger: One has to ask one- 
self : What is it that needs to be done in the 
Department of State? For a variety of rea- 
sons, one could make a case for the proposi- 
tion that since Dean Acheson, the Depart- 
ment of State has really not been used as an 
institution. There has been a succession of 
Secretaries of State, many of them outstand- 
ing individuals, who have tended to operate 
a» Presidential advisers. 

When I came in, I deliberately set myself 
the task of trying to turn the Department of 

November 11, 1974 

State into an institution that can serve suc- 
ceeding Presidents and succeeding Secretar- 
ies of State. Now, in my judgment, this can 
work only if a number of requirements are 

First, the work done in the Department of 
State has to be so outstanding that the issue 
of who is the principal adviser to the Presi- 
dent does not arise as a bureaucratic prob- 
lem, because if the work is of the requisite 
quality then inevitably the Department of 
State will be the organization for decision- 

The second problem has been to put into 
the key positions younger, more forward- 
looking, and more creative people. That part 
of it, I believe, has been substantially accom- 

The third problem is : How does the De- 
partment think of itself? What do the officers 
think their mission is? And this is where the 
difficulty has arisen. It exists on several lev- 
els. In calmer periods of American history 
the rewards, the incentives, the emphasis 
was on negotiating, not analysis. Therefore, 
the organization of the Department of State 
is more geared to producing cables and day- 
to-day tactical decisions than it is to getting 
a grip on national policy. 

Now, I have attempted to get at the con- 
ceptual problem first and not to bother re- 
organizing the operational part particularly. 
I think the Policy Planning Staff is in a more 
central position in the Department of State 
today than it has been at any time since 
George Kennan. I believe the quality of its 
work is outstanding. The Bureau of Intelli- 
gence and Research, which in the past was a 
sort of adjunct to policymaking, has been 
given new vitality. 

In the Bureaus — in the geographic Bu- 
reaus — the relationship between a more con- 
ceptual approach and a more operational ap- 
proach has not yet been fully balanced. One 
of the results of having more power flow to 
the State Department has been that the As- 
sistant Secretaries have spent so much more 
time with me — at least, those that I've 
worked with — that they have not had as 
much time to give to leading their Bureaus. 



So, paradoxically, what some of the lower 
level people complain about is the result of 
the greater involvement of the middle and 
upper echelons. 

Now, I have had over the last two months 
a series of meetings. I have a small group 
that is dealing explicitly with the problem of 
how the Foreign Service and the Department 
of State can be turned into intellectual lead- 
ers of American foreign policy — not bureau- 
cratic operators, but intellectual and concep- 
tual leaders. 

It is too early to tell what the legacy will 
be. I feel very strongly that, partly based on 
my study of history, individual tours de force 
by Secretaries of State can be counterproduc- 
tive if they don't leave a tradition behind, 
and the reason I have always admired Dean 
Acheson so much is because I believe he left 
a legacy of thought and of organization. 

Q. How do you rate the use of diplomatic 
appointments to this theme of .superiority? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, if you look at 
the diplomatic appointments that have been 
made since I became Secretary of State, in 
all the key departmental positions, I think we 
have outstanding personnel. In the overseas 
positions, we have reduced the number of po- 
litical appointees and, quite frankly, have 
been quite resistant to purely political ap- 
pointees in key posts, maybe a little less re- 
sistant in more peripheral appointments. 

Q. Is there anything to the charge that 
trying to be Secretary of State and head of 
the National Security Council (NSC) is doing 
too much ? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, all of these po- 
sitions have to be seen also in relation to the 
history from which they evolve. I was head 
of the NSC staff for five years before I be- 
came Secretary of State. I think the two posi- 
tions are really complementary. The basic 
responsibility of the Assistant to the Presi- 
dent for National Security Affairs is to make 
sure that the President receives the fairest 
possible statement of his alternatives. It is 
against the national interest, and it is 
against, for that matter, a correct percep- 

tion of the self-interest of the Assistant to 
load the dice. 

I generally open an NSC meeting by pre- 
senting the options. The other heads of de- 
partment or heads of agencies are there. If 
I loaded the definition of the options, they 
would in a short time know I was cheating. I 
don't believe the NSC job takes too much 
time. I do believe the two jobs complement 
each other. But of course every President 
must organize the decisionmaking process so 
that he is comfortable with it. 

Contrary to what has been written, I never 
expressed to the President any particular 
view as to how he should organize himself. I 
never talked to the transition team, and I 
have always understood that the ultimate de- 
cision has to be the President's. He has to 
live with his decisions, and he has to live 
with the way these decisions are made. 

Implementing Policies 

Q. Always there has been a problem be- 
tween defining policy and then seeing that 
the policy is actually carried out down 
through the departments. I gather this is 
still a problem? 

Secretary Kissinger: The problem, I be- 
lieve, is that the difference between great 
policy and mediocre policy or substantial 
policy and average policy is usually an accu- 
mulation of nuances. The intellectual debate 
tends to be put in absolutes, but I believe, in 
fact, it is nuances that count. 

Now, how you fine-tune a big bureaucracy 
to be responsive to little shifts and to under- 
stand the psychological intangibles on which 
major decisions often depend is very hard. 

In addition, the key men in any govern- 
ment are there because they usually are men 
of strong will. Obviously, they believe in 
what they are proposing. If a decision goes 
against them, they may believe they haven't 
heard it right, or that the President didn't 
understand them correctly. Or they may sub- 
consciously try to interpret it as close to 
their convictions as they can. I don't say this 
critically; it is unavoidable. 

Thus, how you can have enough control to 


Department of State Bulletin 

make sure that there is coherence in the ac- 
tions, this is the big problem. But basically 
we have not done too badly in implementing 
decisions. I think in many respects — in at 
least the key areas of policymaking — we 
really haven't had too much to think of in 
getting it implemented. 

Q. I don't know how many years ago it 
ivas that Governor Rockefeller made Godkin 
lectures at Harvard. I always suspected you 
had something to do with it. He talked then 
about new concepts of confederation in the 
West. Now, one hears nothing about those 
concepts. Why is this? 

Secretary Kissinger: Because we have 
reached the paradoxical position that at the 
moment when the need for cooperative ac- 
tion is greatest, the national and regional 
sense of identity has also grown. Thus any 
attempt to institutionalize a new structure 
within, for example, a confederal framework 
would meet resistance out of proportion to 
what it could achieve. 

Indeed, some of the efforts that were made 
last year tended in the direction of what 
Governor Rockefeller was talking about in 
1961 without using those words. They were 
resisted for the reason that they seemed to 
be too formal and an intrusion into the sense 
of identity of others. Nevertheless, while the 
organization or the institution of a confed- 
eration may be more than the traffic will 
bear, the need for cooperative action is ab- 
solutely imperative. 

Soviet Union and China 

Q. When I was in Europe just a few weeks 
ago, the question was raised there about your 
concept of China and of the Soviet Union. 
The question was raised whether in your 
mind you have not actually chosen one over 
the other and in the process were playing 
one up against the other. Could you clarify 

Secretary Kissinger: When one analyzes 
foreign policy, there is always the tempta- 
tion to look at the day-to-day tactics and not 
at the underlying reality. Any attempt to 

November 11, 1974 

play off the Soviet Union and Communist 
China against each other would have a high 
risk that, at least for tactical reasons, they 
would combine against us. The rivalry and 
tensions between the Soviet Union and 
Communist China were not created by the 
United States. In fact, we didn't believe in 
their reality for much too long a time. They 
cannot be exploited by the United States. 
They can only be noted by the United States. 

The correct policy for the United States 
is to take account of what exists and to con- 
duct a policy of meticulous honesty with 
both of them so that neither believes we are 
trying to use one against the other. In the 
course of events, it may happen that one may 
feel that it is gaining benefit against the 
other as a result of dealing with us, but that 
cannot be our aim or purpose. 

We have meticulously avoided forms of 
cooperation with the Soviet Union that could 
be construed as directed against China. We 
have never signed agreements whose chief 
purpose could be seen as directed against 
China, and conversely we have never par- 
ticipated with China in declarations that 
could be seen as aimed at the Soviet Union. 
We have developed our bilateral relation- 
ships with both and left them to sort out 
their relationships with each other. In fact, 
we have rarely talked to either of them about 
the other. 

New International Structure 

Q. When you leave this office, what is it 
you want to have achieved at the end of your 
service ? 

Secretary Kissinger: It used to be that the 
overwhelming concern of any President or 
Secretary of State had to be to make a 
contribution to peace in the traditional sense ; 
that is to say, to reduce tensions among 
nations or regions. That remains, of course, 
an essential preoccupation. History has, I 
think, placed me in a key position at a time 
when we are moving from the relics of the 
postwar period toward a new international 

The administration did not invent that 


structure. It did have, however, an oppor- 
tunity to contribute to it — an opportunity 
that did not exist 10 years earlier and that 
may not exist 10 years later. Now, the differ- 
ence between that structure and the pre- 
vious period is that there are more factors 
to consider and that it has to be built not on 
the sense of the preeminence of two power 
centers, but on the sense of participation of 
those who are part of the global environ- 

This has required a change in the Amer- 
ican perception of the nature of foreign 
policy. What is described as excessive prag- 
matism is really a rather conscious attempt to 
try to educate myself, my generation, and my 
associates, insofar as I can contribute to 
living with the world as it is now emerging. 
Pragmatism unrelated to a purpose becomes 
totally self-destructive. 

In addition, I would like to leave at least 
the beginning of a perception of a structure 
that goes beyond these centers of power and 
moves toward a global conception. There is 
no question in my mind that by the end of 
the century this will be the dominant reality 
of our time. I believe we have to move 
toward it now. 

Q. Can you define it ? 

Secretary Kissinger: Before I go to that, 
let me say one other thing that I have been 
very much concerned with. However long I 
stay, it will be but a temporary episode. To 
succeed in these objectives, I will have to 
leave behind a public understanding and, 
above all, an intellectual understanding in the 
State Department that can carry on not only 
the detailed policies but an overall under- 
standing of where America fits into the 
global scheme of things. I intend to give 
increasing attention to this problem. 

Q. One of your close friends once said to 
me, "Kissinger has a weakness for becoming 
melancholy and leaving the job." What is 
your perception of how long you wish to stay 
in this job? 

Secretary Kissinger: I may have a predi- 
lection for becoming melancholy, but there 
are very few jobs I believed in that I have 

actually left. Jean Monnet once said that he 
isn't interested whether a man is ambitious ; 
the question is whether he is ambitious to do 
something or ambitious to be something. I 
think the same is true of vanity or many 
other qualities that can be ascribed to people 
in key positions. 

I'd like to leave at a moment when it is 
still clear that my ambition and my vanity 
are geared toward doing something and when 
holding onto the job does not become the cen- 
tral preoccupation or the chief focus of pub- 
lic debate. Now, when that is depends on 
many factors — obviously, on the confidence 
of the President, about which I have no prob- 
lem ; the degree of public support ; the degree 
of congressional support. 

I have felt very strongly that foreign pol- 
icy must be a national effort and that while 
of course disagreements are inevitable, I'd 
rather them to cut across party lines, just as 
I hope the support would cut across party 

Now, if debate becomes too partisan, then 
I would have to look at the situation again, 
and I do not believe anyone is indispensable 
or should develop a policy that makes him 
indispensable, because that would contradict 
the whole perception of what I — 

Resumption of Foreign Policy Debate 

Q. There has been a lot of talk on the Hill, 
since they cut your foreign aid bill and one 
or two other things, that the support you had 
on the Hill and in the country has been 
eroded recently. Is that true, in your judg- 
ment ? 

Secretary Kissinger: Support in the coun- 
try, I cannot judge. Whenever I appear in 
public, I seem to draw large crowds, but I 
am no expert on public support. 

As to support on the Hill, I think one has 
to distinguish the very unusual situation that 
existed before President Nixon's resignation 
with what could reasonably be expected. Be- 
fore President Nixon's resignation there was 
such a sense of horror at the disintegration 
of authority domestically that everybody had 
an interest in demonstrating that there was 


Department of State Bulletin 

no debate on our foreign policy. There was a 
desire to preserve one island of authority in 
this general disintegz*ation. 

Therefore, I probably had an unusually 
favorable situation on the Hill that no one 
could expect to preserve in normal circum- 

So I would think what has happened now, 
after President Nixon's resignation, is the 
opening of foreign policy to normal partisan 
debate. Probably in the excitement the pen- 
dulum is swinging a bit too far and there are 
intrusions in day-to-day tactical decisions 
which Congress really isn't best equipped to 
handle. But I think the pendulum will swing 
back — not to where it was before, and that 
wasn't healthy, anyway — but to a normal 
kind of political debate. 

Q. You mentioned Jean Monnet, and he 
once said to me, not in recent years, in prior 
discussions about the CIA: "A democratic 
country as open as America can never really 
run a secret service, and if it tries to do so, 
in the end probably its losses are really 
greater than its gains." What do you think 
of that? 

Secretary Kissinger: I think an intelligence 
organization is essential for a great power. I 
don't think there is much dispute about the 
part of the intelligence organization that 
collects information, analyzes it, and tries to 
interpret the world to political leaders. 

The debates arise where the intelligence 
organization is operational and attempts to 
affect political events in other parts of the 
world. In this case there is a serious problem, 
because there is a gray area between the ex- 
ercise of diplomacy and the use of force. Ad- 
mittedly, you may create political realities — 
or political realities may come about — of 
great magnitude. 

There is no question that insofar as covert 
operations are conducted they should be care- 
fully controlled, first of all within the execu- 
tive branch, to make certain there is no al- 
ternative and that they meet political goals 
and, secondly, to the degree possible, by Con- 
gress. How to do this, I think, requires care- 
ful study. 

November 11, 1974 

A View of America 

Q. I'm more interested in the rising gen- 
eration than I am in the contemporary prob- 
lem, and for that reason I wanted to ask you 
this: A colleague of mine went to see Willy 
Brandt and asked, "What does the young 
generation in Germany now think of Amer- 
ica?" And Brandt replied, "The magic is 
gone." And when he was asked what he 
meant by that, it was that we have used 
power, he thought, in a way that did not 
comport to our ideals, particidarly in Viet- 
Nam, but there was something beyond that, 
a kind of sense that we were engaged in a 
kind of disintegration. He mentioned the 
drug ctdture in America as being profoundly 
worrisome and that somehow we had lost 
our ideals in the way in which we approach 
the world. 

Secretary Kissinger: I was told last year 
that the public opinion polls in Germany in 
the second half of the year dramatically 
changed from showing a declining image of 
the United States to increasingly favoring 
the United States. The explanation I was 
given was the end of the Viet-Nam war and 
the decisive handling of the Middle East 

The Germans, the younger Germans, again 
saw the United States as a nation that could 
solve problems — and that is one of the ele- 
ments of the American appeal. 

America has gone through many changes, 
dramatic changes, in the last decade. We even 
began to develop a new isolationism. The old 
isolationism was based on the proposition 
that we were too good for this world; the 
new isolationism was based on the proposi- 
tion that we're not good enough for it. 

When one looks at the process of growing 
up, it is largely a process of learning one's 
limits, that one is not immortal, that one can- 
not achieve everything; and then to draw 
from that realization the strength to set 
great goals nevertheless. Now, I think that 
as a country we've gone through this. We 
were immature in the sense that we thought 
the definition of goals was almost the equiva- 
lent of their realization. 


Then we went to the opposite extreme, and 
I think from this point of view the Kennedy 
period is likely to be seen as the end of an 
era, rather than as the beginning of one : the 
last great flowering of the naive version of 
American idealism. And I don't say this as a 

I think now that the drug culture, the stu- 
dent rebellion, are in that sense behind us. 
Of course, we still have the drug culture, but 
as problems that threaten the spirit of Amer- 
ica, I think they either are behind us or could 
be behind us if we can now do what any adult 
has to do in his life. When you get to the rec- 
ognition of your limits, then the question be- 
comes whether you transcend them or wal- 
low in them. That is a choice that is up to us. 

Q. From the period from Roosevelt 
through the Kennedy period, the central 
theme of this country was that ive could do 
anything in the world, and then we ran into 
some disappointments and seemed to go into 
a phase of self-doubt in which we began to 
wonder whether we coidd do anything effec- 
tively. Now, do we have the self-confidence 
and the essential trust in one another and in 
our institutions to support the kind of for- 
eign policy you want? 

Secretary Kissinger: I have to say this is 
the big question I ask myself. In some strange 
way, I think the American people have come 
through these recent crises in rather good 
shape. I would not have thought you could 
have assassinations, the Viet-Nam war, Wa- 
tergate and all that went with it, and still 
have basic confidence in government. 

Among the intellectual and political lead- 
ership groups, I'm not so sure. But even 
there, as I said earlier, during the Watergate 
period there was support for foreign policy. 
There is still a remarkable sense of national 
cohesion, so I am basically optimistic. But 
above all, I don't think we have any choice 
except to try, and in this respect the Amer- 
ican idealistic tradition gives the United 
States a resource that exists in no other coun- 
try in the world. 

In this country, even with all the isolation- 
ism, when you talk about a sense of responsi- 

bility, you touch the core of people; you can 
mention very few other countries of the 
world where it could be even a plausible ar- 

Q. At one point the West was bound to- 
gether by certain religious ideals, certain 
moral ideals. What is it that binds the free 
world together today, if anything? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, what binds us 
together on an unsatisfactory level is indus- 
trial civilization, which imposes common real- 
ities and necessities on all of us. We are also 
tied together by an approach to politics in 
which ultimately the fulfillment of human 
needs plays a central role. Now, the defini- 
tion of what those needs are can be disputed, 
but that it does play a crucial role is clear. 
Indeed, much of the political turmoil in the 
industrialized world is caused by the uncer- 
tainty as to precisely what those deeper needs 

We are tied together, too, by a perception 
of politics in which various groups and the 
individual play a crucial role. And the com- 
bination of industrial necessity plus the fact 
that a complicated society cannot be run by 
direction and must have a certain amount of 
consensus will in time begin to permeate 
even totalitarian regimes. 

Western Hemisphere Dialogue 

Q. Do you see the possibility of a closer 
regional understanding and even structural 
development of regionalism within the hemi- 
sphere in the foreseeable future? 

Secretary Kissinger: Since I've become 
Secretary of State, I've spent a considerable 
amount of time on Western Hemisphere re- 
lationships. If it is true that the relations be- 
tween industrialized and developing nations 
are essential features of our period, then in 
the Western Hemisphere, where we are deal- 
ing with countries of similar traditions and, 
indeed, similar history — this is where a be- 
ginning must be made. If we cannot solve it 
creatively here, it is hard to know how we 
can be creative about it elsewhere. 

How formal that structure can be, I don't 


Department of State Bulletin 

know. I have found two things : One is that 
the mere act of dialogue in the Western Hem- 
isphere has had an emotional response; and 
secondly, I have been struck in my meet- 
ings — I've now attended three Foreign Min- 
isters meetings in the Western Hemisphere — 
by the fact that if one read the records with- 
out the mood of the meetings, one would find 
in them a litany of criticism of the United 
States. But if one actually was at the meet- 
ings, one had the sense that this was a fam- 
ily quarrel ; that in some intangible way, one 
was talking as a member of the family. 

So I think that in the Western Hemisphere 
we have the possibilities of a creative phase, 
provided the United States can shed its tra- 
ditional predominance and recognize that the 
decisions that emerge must be genuinely felt 
by our friends in the Western Hemisphere to 
be theirs. 

Need for Sacrifice 

Q. Is it reasonable for the American peo- 
ple to go on assuming, in a hungry world 
where raw materials are increasingly scarce, 
that our standard of living each year can go 
on going up, or do we have to face new re- 
sponsibilities and even some sacrifices in this 
country in order to bring about some kind of 
world order? 

Secretary Kissiyiger: Now, here I'm talking 
off the top of my head. I would think, if we 
look ahead to the year 2000 and beyond, we 
have to be prepared to face a world quite 
different from what we have now. We see it 
already in energy. I believe that the day of 
the 400-horsepower engine is over, whether 
it's this year or five years from now. You're 
going to see different types of automobiles, 
and that affects our style of life. 

We will have to develop a global food pol- 
icy. We cannot deal with issues like this 
week's grain sale to the Soviet Union on a 
crash basis every few months. To do so will 
affect our whole perception of the relation- 
ship of agriculture to our society and our 
foreign policy. 

Q. When you talk about cooperation be- 
tween the Communists and the capitalist 

world, where do you see this leading? To the 
domination of one over the other, or to a 
combination of the two, or what? 

Secretary Kissinger: I think that any at- 
tempt at domination in a nuclear age is going 
to involve risks that are catastrophic and 
would not be tolerated. If we remain strong 
enough to prevent the imposition of Commu- 
nist hegemony, then I believe that transfor- 
mations of the Communist societies are in- 
evitable. I believe that the imposition of state 
control of the kind that communism demands 
is totally incompatible with the requirements 
of human organization at this moment. 

The pressure of this realization on Commu- 
nist systems is going to bring about a trans- 
formation apart from any conscious policy 
the United States pursues, so long as there is 
not a constant foreign danger that can be 
invoked to impose regimentation. 

What inherent reason is there that keeps 
the Communist societies in Eastern Europe 
from achieving the standard of living of 
those of Western Europe? The resources are 
about the same; the industrial organization 
is there. I think the reason is inherent in the 
type of society that has been created, and 
that, I believe, must inevitably change. 

Looking Back 

Q. Looking back over these almost six 
years, is there anything in the conduct of our 
foreign policy that you regret, that you would 
like to change? 

Secretary Kissinger: I'm quite convinced 
that I'll be much more reflective a year or 
two after I leave here than I can be today. 
What I regret is that so much of the time 
had to be spent on the Viet-Nam war. If we 
could have got that behind us more rapidly, 
we could have brought the more positive side 
of our foreign policy to fruition at a time 
when attitudes were less rigidly formed. 

The real tragedy was Watergate, because I 
believe that at the beginning of President 
Nixon's second term we had before us — due 
to changing conditions — a period of poten- 
tial creativity. We contributed some of that 


November 11, 1974 


potential, but some of it was inherent in the 
objective situation. 

Instead, we had to spend almost all of our 
energy in preserving what existed, rather 
than building on the foundations that had 
been laid. Even the year of Europe could 
have gone differently in a different environ- 
ment. But you never know what opportuni- 
ties may have been lost. 

Those are my big regrets. There are many 
tactical things I would in retrospect perhaps 
do differently, but I think it's premature to 
speculate on those. 

Now, what problems I leave to my suc- 
cessor depends, of course, at what time I 
leave, and I don't want to have this sound as 
a valedictory. If I resigned today, he would 
have the Middle East problem in mid-solu- 

I think we are now at a point where the 
framework of the structure exists, if we can 
put it together. We have the raw material, 
we have the elements, we've identified them, 
I hope, correctly. We are at the beginning 
of building a consciousness of the global com- 
munity that must come after us. 

Q. Can you see a settlement of the Middle 
East thing in, say, before we get to the bi- 
centennial, or the end of this administration ? 

Secretary Kissinger: Before we get to the 
bicentennial, I think we can make consider- 
able progress, at least to a point where one 
can see the settlement emerging. But it could 
also go very badly. That is yet a delicate 

Role of Intellectuals 

Q. You once said to me that you were re- 
lying very heavily — even when you were in 
the middle of your service in Washington 
this time — on concepts and intellectual sup- 
port you had got from your colleagues in 
Cambridge way back in '59, and that you 
felt a lack of this as time went on. Is that 
still true? 

I look back, for example, at the area of stra- 
tegic arms limitation, most of the creative 
thought with which I am familiar dates back 
to the late fifties and was then introduced 
into the government first in the Kennedy ad- 
ministration and then, I hope, in ours. 

Two things are lacking now : One, the same 
sense of relationship toward the government 
that intellectuals had then; now they volun- 
teer less and participate less. Secondly, there 
is a lack of relevant intellectual work. 

Intellectuals are now divided into essen- 
tially three groups — those that reject the gov- 
ernment totally, those that work on pure, 
abstract intellectual models which are impos- 
sible to make relevant, and a third group 
that's too close to power and that sees its 
service to the government as residing pri- 
marily in day-to-day tactics. No outsider can 
be very helpful on the day-to-day business, 
because he doesn't know enough of the cur- 
rent situation to really make a contribution. 

The best service intellectuals can render is, 
first, to ask important questions — and that's 
a difficult problem — and second, to provide a 
middle-term perspective. But for that they 
need to have some compassion for the prob- 
lems of the policymaker, just as he needs an 
understanding of their needs. I feel the lack, 
and I hope that now that our domestic cli- 
mate is somewhat better we can restore mu- 
tual confidence. 

Q. Was it not a great mistake to wipe out 
the Office of the Science Adviser, who was 
bringing in objective thought? I felt that 
lack of it, for example, on the whole question 
of oil and other raw materials. 

Secretary Kissinger: I think it's a pity. I 
hope that some focal point is created which 
will look upon the intellectual community as 
its constituency, and that they will be lis- 
tened to. 

Q. Just one last point: I take it that you 
are saying that you don't want this to be in- 
terpreted as a swan song? 

Secretary Kissinger: I think it is true. As Secretary Kissinger: Yes. 


Department of State Bulletin 

The Testing of American Commitment 

Address by Secretary Kissinger 

I am for several reasons deeply honored to 
address this gathering — first, because of the 
many distinguished men who have spoken 
from this podium in years past; second, be- 
cause I know and admire the humanitarian 
work which this dinner helps support; and 
most important, because we pay tribute to- 
night to a man who represented the best of 
America and embodied human qualities which 
are an inspiration to us still. 

Al Smith's America was an optimistic 
country — a land that never doubted its abil- 
ity to solve the problems before it, regardless 
of magnitude. We were a people confident in 
the worth of our moral values and the decency 
of our purposes. 

Al Smith epitomized the irrepressible spirit 
of his time and his country. He never flinched 
from a battle, but he never let the battle con- 
sume him. His compassion and his dreams 
sustained him because he knew that all great 
achievements begin as ideals. 

Our America, regrettably perhaps, has lost 
some of that innocence. We have learned that 
we are not omnipotent, and now we face the 
true test of maturity: Having learned our 
limits, are we prepared to marshal our 
strengths? Or will we shrink in frustration 
from our new challenges? It is a crucial 
question, for the world needs our optimism, 
our faith, and our creativity as never before. 

Cardinal Cooke [Terence Cardinal Cooke, 
Archbishop of New York], in his gracious 
letter of invitation, asked that I share with 

1 Made before the annual dinner of the Alfred E. 
Smith Memorial Foundation at New York, N.Y., on 
Oct. 16 (as delivered). 

you my "vision of a better and more peace- 
ful world." 

It is not an easy task. For what is peace? 
Through most of our history Americans 
thought of peace as a static condition — a 
world living in the absence of war unless evil 
men intruded their darker designs. Secure 
behind two oceans, we left to others the day- 
to-day decisions that, over time, spelled war 
or peace, security or fear for less favored na- 
tions. We were spared the agony of recon- 
ciling the ideal with the practical, of making 
do with limited means and contingent ends. 

But two World Wars and an era of involve- 
ment and conflict should now have taught us 
that peace is a process, not a condition. We 
have learned we must express moral values 
in steadfastness of purpose even while ne- 
cessity imposes compromise. We now know 
that we are on a journey that has no termi- 
nal point, whose engine is reality, and whose 
beacon is a better life for future generations. 
And we have come to realize that if we are 
ever to have true peace there can be no end 
to our own exertions. 

— Ours is a pluralistic world. It must find 
peace in conciliation rather than in the dom- 
ination of any group or country. This is the 
kind of world we have always seen as reflect- 
ing our national ideals as well as our highest 

— Ours is a world in which the needs of 
ordinary people cry out for economic and so- 
cial progress, for self-respect, dignity, and 
justice. These were objectives to which Amer- 
icans responded even in the most isolationist 
of times. They are our objectives still. Food 




IP u 

November 11, 1974 


aid and public health, scientific and technical 
cooperation, are fields in which international 
efforts have been sustained by our contribu- 
tion. They now become not an exercise in 
charity but the cement of global community. 

— It is, above all, a world of turmoil and 
change, a world much in need of a self-confi- 
dent America that understands that without 
its leadership there can be no stability, no 
permanent improvement in the human con- 
dition, and no lasting peace. The irony of our 
time is that the simple faith of Al Smith's 
provincial America is precisely what the 
world desperately needs today. 

In the past few years we have achieved 
important goals. We have ended our involve- 
ment in a divisive war ; we have resolved the 
perennial postwar crisis over Berlin ; we have 
begun hopeful efforts to achieve peace in the 
Middle East; we have bridged two decades 
of hostility with the world's most populous 
nation; we have taken major steps to dimin- 
ish the danger of nuclear war and to build a 
more durable political relationship with our 
most powerful adversary; we have sought a 
more mature and equal partnership with our 

We have emerged from — and perhaps put 
behind us — a postwar structure of rigid East- 
West military and ideological confrontation. 

But now — indeed, partly because of our 
success — we experience the birth pangs of a 
new order. We face a new dimension of chal- 
lenges, more pervasive and complex, with 
perils at once more subtle and profound. A 
new world is emerging — a world whose se- 
curity, well-being, and moral fulfillment de- 
mand interdependence; a world whose peo- 
ples are interlinked by technology and global 
communications, by the common danger of 
nuclear war, and by the worldwide thrusts 
of human needs ; a world in which traditional 
structures and tenets of diplomacy are being 

At the midway point between the end of 
the Second World War and the end of this 
century, we find ourselves also midway be- 
tween the nation-state from which we began 

and the global community which we must 
fashion if we are ever to live in a lasting 

We face a new and fundamental crisis of 
the international system: 

— Inflation is a global phenomenon infect- 
ing all societies and clearly beyond the power 
of any national government to control alone. 

— The threat of global famine and mass 
starvation is an affront to our values and an 
intolerable threat to our hopes for a better 

— The abrupt rise of energy costs, and the 
ensuing threats of monetary crisis and eco- 
nomic stagnation, threaten to undermine the 
economic system that nourished the world's 
well-being for over 30 years. 

All these problems are dealt with in a 
clearly inadequate framework. National so- 
lutions continue to be pursued when, mani- 
festly, their very futility is the crisis we face. 

Inflation eats away the well-being of na- 
tions on the verge of development and of 
whole classes at the margin of society. Eco- 
nomic stagnation, or recession, will feed the 
frustration of groups whose expectations for 
a share in the prosperity they see around 
them are suddenly and cruelly rebuffed. Star- 
vation will shatter the hopes of developing 
nations for progress. Thus the economic cri- 
sis threatens to magnify the discontent and 
ungovernability of all societies. 

Only cooperative international solutions 
are equal to the challenge. With respect to 
energy, consumers must be prepared to share 
and conserve and provide mutual financial as- 
sistance; consumers and producers together 
must shape a mutually beneficial long-term 
relationship ; there must be a determined and 
lasting commitment in each country to the 
conservation and discipline President Ford 
proposed to the nation a week ago. 

The threat of mass starvation, in particu- 
lar, requires a major commitment. Cardinal ' 
Cooke's eloquent appeal for assistance to the 
drought-ridden Sahel, which he has just vis- 
ited, deserves our strong support. And at 
next month's World Food Conference in 


Department of State Bulletin 

Rome, the United States plans to launch a 
new long-term international program of ac- 
tion. To do less would violate moral impera- 
tives as well as practical necessities. 

Nor is the current crisis purely economic. 
After nearly 30 years without general war, 
the world has become dangerously tolerant 
of accelerating nuclear proliferation and the 
purposeless expansion of strategic arsenals. 
Festering political conflicts, whether in the 
Middle East or Cyprus or Indochina, ulti- 
mately could pose the same threat to general 
peace as did the more dramatic great-power 
confrontation of a decade ago. 

Thus the requirements of peace and prog- 
ress demand of all nations a new and un- 
precedented sense of responsibility to the in- 
ternational system. 

The issues confronting America today are 
not, in their deepest sense, issues of econom- 
ics, technology, or diplomacy. They are a 
challenge to our preconceptions, a test of our 
foresight, our will, and our strength of pur- 
pose. Dogmas left over from the 19th cen- 
tury — of national autonomy or economic de- 
terminism — do not even address, let alone re- 
solve, the international issues of the last 
quarter of the 20th century. The fact is that 
all nations — East and West, aligned and non- 
aligned — are part of one global system and 
dependent on it for their peace, their well- 
being, and the achievement of their own na- 
tional objectives. If that system fails through 
accident or design, no nation or bloc is spared 
the penalty. 

Your Eminence, ladies and gentlemen: A 
great responsibility rests upon us here in 
America. For many years our country has 
carried a disproportionate share of the bur- 
den of maintaining the peace, of feeding the 
hungry, and giving hope to the world's dis- 
possessed. It has been a heavy burden — 
which we did not seek and which we have 
often been tempted to put down. But we have 
not done so, nor can we afford to do so now, 
for it is the generations who follow us who 
would pay the price for our abdication. 

For more than a decade we have been torn 
by war and then by constitutional crisis. We 

November 11, 1974 

have been enervated by our exertions and 
perhaps even more by self-doubt. But now 
the war is over and the crisis resolved. It is 
time we made peace with ourselves. 

The bitterness that has characterized the 
national debate for most of a decade no longer 
has reason or place. Governments by their 
very nature must make difficult choices and 
judgments when facts are not clear and when 
trends are uncertain. This is difficult in the 
best of circumstances. It may grow danger- 
ously erratic in a pervasive climate of dis- 
trust and conflict. Debate in a democratic so- 
ciety should find its ultimate limit in a gen- 
eral recognition that we are all engaged in a 
common enterprise. Let us never forget that 
at home a society thrives not on its internal 
victories but on its reconciliations. 

A year ago your speaker ended with these 
words : 

My own great hope is that all of us may do honor 
to the memory of Alfred E. Smith by loving this 
country as deeply as he did, and by serving her as 

That speaker was President Ford. These 
phrases are especially meaningful to some- 
one for whom America was a haven and not 
something to be taken for granted. 

This country is summoned once again to 
leadership, to helping the world find its way 
from a time of fear into a new era of hope. 
With our old idealism and our new maturity, 
let us disprove the impression that men and 
nations are losing control over their desti- 
nies. Americans still believe that problems 
are soluble if we try. We still believe it is 
right to seek to undo what is wrong with the 
world. And we still seek the excitement of 
new frontiers rather than shrinking from 
their uncertainty. 

So we return to our starting point. Our 
"vision of a better and more peaceful world" 
must begin with a vision of ourselves. And 
in that context let us remember the jaunty 
little man from the sidewalks of New York 
who was not for nothing called the Happy 
Warrior. In him America proved that man 
achieves nobility not by his beginnings but 
by his ends. 


President Costa Gomes of Portugal 
Visits Washington 

Joint U.S. -Portuguese Communique 1 

At the invitation of President Ford, His 
Excellency Francisco da Costa Gomes, Pres- 
ident of the Republic of Portugal, visited 
Washington on October 18. President Costa 
Gomes, who was accompanied by the Foreign 
Minister, Dr. Mario Soares, had meetings 
with President Ford and with Secretary of 
State Kissinger and was the guest of honor at 
a luncheon given by Secretary Kissinger. 

President Costa Gomes outlined the 
achievements of the Portuguese Government 
in light of recent events in restoring civil 
and political liberties to Portugal and in cre- 
ating the basis for a return to democracy. 
He reported on the negotiations which had 
led to the independence of Guinea-Bissau 
and explained his government's plans for the 
granting of self-determination and independ- 
ence to the remaining overseas territories. 
He reaffirmed his government's commitment 
to the North Atlantic Treaty and its desire 
to develop even closer ties to the United 

President Ford expressed his admiration 
for the statesmanship shown by Portuguese 
leaders in undertaking to restore democracy 
to Portugal by holding free elections soon 
and in making possible the enjoyment of the 
right of self-determination and independence 
by the peoples of Portugal's overseas terri- 
tories. He noted with pleasure President 
Costa Gomes' reaffirmation of Portugal's 
commitment to NATO and expressed his con- 
fidence that ties between the United States 
and Portugal will become ever closer. 

The two Presidents agreed that, as these 
developments proceed, it would be in our mu- 
tual interest to intensify the cooperation be- 
tween the two countries to embrace new ac- 
tivities in a broad range of areas, such as 
education, health, energy, agriculture, trans- 
portation and communications, among others. 

issued on Oct. 18 (text from White House press 

They agreed that this expansion of their co- 
operation could begin with technical talks in 
the fields of agriculture, public health, educa- 
tion and financial and economic matters, as 
requested by the Portuguese authorities. 

They also agreed that the two countries 
should continue and intensify negotiations re- 
lating to cooperation in the Azores. 

U.S.-U.S.S.R. Trade and Economic 
Council Meets at Moscow 

Following is a statement made by Secre- 
tary of the Treasury William E. Simon be- 
fore the second board meeting of the U.S.- 
U.S.S.R. Trade and Economic Council at 
Moscow on October 15. 

Department of the Treasury press release dated October 15 

Much has happened since the first meeting 
of the joint board last February in Washing- 
ton. There have been unprecedented events 
in the political life of my country. 

Many things have not changed however; 
high among these is the desire of the United 
States to further the development of peace- 
ful, fruitful relations with the Soviet Union. 
As President Ford told the Congress shortly 
after taking office : 

To the Soviet Union, I pledge continuity in our 
commitment to the course of the past three years. 
. . . there can be no alternative to a positive and 
peaceful relationship between our nations. 

We are here today to discuss economic and 
trade relations between our countries. No- 
where is there more concrete evidence of the 
progress we are making than in this field. 

Our bilateral trade is rapidly approaching 
the three-year goal of $2-$3 billion trade 
turnover which was set at the 1973 summit. 
In 1973 alone, U.S.-U.S.S.R. trade turnover 
was $1.4 billion. Although total trade is down 
somewhat this year after the exceptionally . 
large agricultural shipments of 1973, U.S. 
sales of machinery and equipment products 
have risen sharply, and U.S.S.R. exports to 
the United States have shown a very substan- 
tial increase. 


Department of State Bulletin 

Seventeen American firms now have re- 
ceived permission to open accredited offices 
in Moscow. Export-Import Bank loans for 
the Soviet Union have increased to $470 mil- 
lion. Impressive contracts have been signed 
in the last nine months for the Kama River 
truck plant, the Moscow Trade Center, the 
fertilizer project, and equipment for gas pipe- 
line development. 

The U.S. commercial office opened for busi- 
ness in Moscow last spring. In addition to 
smaller exhibits staged in its display area, my 
government recently sponsored U.S. firms' 
participation in two major Soviet trade shows 
(health and plastics manufacturing equip- 
ment) and organized a successful solo exhibi- 
tion of American machine tools in Sokolniki 

Our two governments are pledged to con- 
tinue this momentum. In the long-term agree- 
ment signed in June, both formally agreed to 
facilitate economic, industrial, and technical 
cooperation and exchange information on eco- 
nomic trends. 

Progress has also been made in resolving 
the policy problems which could inhibit fur- 
ther growth. Soon after entering the White 
House, President Ford emphasized to Con- 
gress the importance he attached to granting 
most-favored-nation status to the Soviet Un- 
ion. I look forward to early resolution of the 
trade reform bill which I believe will bring 
about satisfactory export-import legislation. 
This will clear the impediments on the path 
of an expanding trade relationship. 

The U.S. Government will continue to help 
clear away obstacles to improvement in our 
economic and commercial relations. In the 
final analysis, however, the action responsi- 
bility for each U.S.-Soviet commercial trans- 
action rests with the private sector of our 
economy. It is for this reason that we en- 
couraged the formation of the Trade and 
Economic Council, which brings together of- 
ficials from your ministries and trading or- 
ganizations and top management representa- 
tives from our firms — it is these people who 
are doing the actual work of expanding trade. 

As we all know, the Council was formed 
as the result of a protocol entered into in 

June of 1973 by Minister [of Foreign Trade 
N.S.] Patolichev and my predecessor, Secre- 
tary [George P.] Shultz. It's important, how- 
ever, to remember that while the Council is 
the creation of the two governments, on the 
U.S. side it has been adopted by the private 
sector — our business community. As an hon- 
orary director of the Council, I am pleased to 
note that the child of these two governments 
is healthy and growing at a rapid pace, and 
I am pleased with the care and upbringing it 
is being given by the U.S. Government. I 
voice our appreciation for the support and 
help given the Council since its inception by 
the Soviet Government. 

While the role of the Council is to foster 
and promote the growth of the U.S.-Soviet 
trade and economic relationship, and while I 
am confident that the U.S. Congress will ap- 
prove legislation so necessary to the normali- 
zation of this relationship, I also envisage 
that out of this improved relationship will 
emerge a larger joint economic role for our 
two countries. 

Given the extraordinary global economic 
interrelationship of all countries, there is a 
greater-than-ever need for responsibility and 
cooperation between nations. It is hard to 
conceive of a solution fair to all countries, 
large and small, in any area of major interest 
without the full and close cooperation of the 
United States and the U.S.S.R. 

Since February, the Council has developed 
into a fully functioning organization. Bina- 
tional staffs are now at work on some 60 ma- 
jor projects in New York and Moscow. The 
Council has found excellent office space in 
Manhattan, and yesterday we dedicated the 
attractive offices on the Shevchenko Embank- 
ment. The Subcommittee on Science and 
Technology concluded a productive first meet- 
ing a few days ago in New York. 

This is an excellent beginning, but is only 
a beginning, and I am confident that it fore- 
shadows even greater accomplishments in the 
future as the Council realizes its full poten- 
tial in the development of fruitful economic 
relations between our countries. 

As an honorary director of the U.S.- 
U.S.S.R. Trade and Economic Council, I com- 


November 11, 1974 


mend my fellow directors and the Council 
staff for the progress you have made so far. 
I wish you well in your deliberations at this 
meeting, and I urge you to work diligently to 
create an economic fabric between our two 
countries of so many strands so closely in- 
terwoven that not only is there no visible 
seam, but also that it is so strong as to be 
virtually unbreakable. 

So while we work to intermesh and syn- 
chronize our different economic systems, we 
also work to prepare and strengthen our- 
selves for jointly addressing in harmony the 
problems of creating a better world for all 
countries and all people. 

U.S.S.R. Agrees To Limit Purchases 
of U.S. Grain in Current Crop Year 

Department of the Treasury Announcement 

Department of the Treasury press release dated October 19 

Secretary of the Treasury William E. Si- 
mon announced on October 19 conclusion of 
an agreement with the Soviet Union on pur- 
chases of U.S. grains during the current crop 

The Soviet Union agreed to limit its total 
grain purchases from the United States this 
crop year to 2.2 million tons, including 1 mil- 
lion tons of corn and 1.2 million tons of 

An additional 1 million tons of grain con- 
tracted for earlier in October can be deliv- 
ered from other exporting countries. The So- 
viet purchasing agency for grains will make 
the necessary purchase arrangements with 
U.S. export firms. 

The Soviet Union also agreed to make no 
further purchases in the U.S. market this 
crop year, which ends next summer. Fur- 
ther, the Soviet Union agreed to work with 
the United States toward development of a 
supply/demand data system for grains. 

The agreement followed talks in Moscow 
by Secretary Simon with Minister of Foreign 
Trade N. S. Patolichev. Secretary Simon was 
in the Soviet Union October 12-15 for the 
opening of the Moscow office of the U.S.- 
U.S.S.R. Trade and Economic Council. 

The grain talks were scheduled following 
the Soviets' buying activity in the United 
States earlier in October. At that time, the 
Soviet Union placed orders with two U.S. ex- 
port firms for the purchase of 3.2 million 
tons of U.S. grain, including 2.3 million tons 
of corn and 900,000 tons of wheat for deliv- 
ery during the 1974/75 crop year, which 
ends next summer. Following talks with Pres- 
ident Ford on October 5, the presidents of 
the two export firms agreed to hold these 
sales in abeyance until after Secretary Si- 
mon's visit to Moscow. 

This year's Soviet purchases of U.S. grain 
will be small compared with purchases dur- 
ing the past two years. The Soviet Union 
bought 17 million tons of U.S. grain during 
1972 and 7 million tons in 1973. The smaller 
purchases in 1974 are in line with smaller 
export availabilities of U.S. grain as a result 
of the disappointing corn harvest this year. 
The United States has harvested a record 
wheat crop, but the corn crop is expected to 
be down 16 percent from last year's record 
harvest. Total U.S. feed grain production is 
expected to be down 18 percent. 

In his talks with Soviet officials, Secretary 
Simon emphasized that the United States 
wants to continue developing its agricultural 
trade with the Soviet Union. The Soviets ad- 
vised Secretary Simon that the Soviet Union 
will have an adequate harvest this year but 
that imports are needed for specialized live- 
stock production units. 

Secretary Simon reviewed with Soviet of- 
ficials the type of grain data that the United 
States receives from other countries that 
purchase U.S. grain. The Soviets agreed to 
work toward the development of a data ex-- 
change system on grain between the two gov- 


Department of State Bulletin 

The World Population Conference: An Assessment 

Address by Philander P. Claxton, Jr. 

Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Population Matters 1 

It will be a decade or more before the ac- 
complishments of the World Population Con- 
ference can be fully judged. We have enough 
perspective now, however, to see the confer- 
ence whole and to assess it generally. By any 
reasonable standard it was a remarkable suc- 

Although the results were not ideal and 
there were disappointments, it carried out 
the purposes for which it was established by 
the Economic and Social Council four years 

Even before the conference itself, prepara- 
tions for it and the stimulation of World 
Population Year 1974 had caused many coun- 
tries to review their own population and 
family planning policies. Several had moved 
toward more affirmative positions. Brazil, 
for example, the largest country without an 
affirmative national policy, had determined, 
and announced at Bucharest, a policy em- 
bracing recognition of the right of couples to 
determine the number and spacing of their 
children and the obligation of the govern- 
ment to make the necessary means available. 

The fact that the world conference on this 
difficult and delicate subject was held at all 
was an outstanding achievement. It was all 
the more so because 137 nations attended — 
one of the largest U.N. conferences ever held 
— including all members of the United Na- 

1 Made before a conference for nongovernmental 
organizations on "Bucharest and the Future" at the 
Department of State on Oct. 10 (text from press re- 
lease 400). Mr. Claxton was a member of the U.S. 
delegation to the World Population Conference at 
Bucharest Aug. 19-30. 

November 11, 1974 

tions or its specialized agencies except South 
Africa, Saudi Arabia, and North Viet-Nam. 
They debated vigorously for two weeks, in a 
plenary, three committees of the whole, and 
a working group, and went away in good 
spirits with a sense of accomplishment. 

The intense debate, too often burdened by 
polemics and ideologies, was nevertheless an 
important educational process which made 
all those attending more aware of the deeply 
held beliefs of others. 

The adoption by acclamation (only one del- 
egation reserving) of an excellent World 
Population Plan of Action, after a hundred- 
plus amendments — 47 by votes — was, as the 
U.S. delegation said in its closing statement, 
an achievement of great magnitude. 2 We de- 
clared this achievement should not be con- 
sidered as a victory or a defeat for any fac- 
tion, nation, or group of nations, but as a 
triumph for the process of international co- 
operation under the United Nations. 

The plan of action was agreed to only after 
intensive debate and negotiation. The debate 
began with a concerted five-pronged attack 
by Algeria, supported by a few African coun- 
tries ; Argentina, supported by three or four 
Latin American countries; an Eastern Eu- 
ropean group of eight Socialist countries ; the 
People's Republic of China; and the Holy 

The attack was directed primarily toward 
the conceptual basis of the draft plan of ac- 
tion presented by the Secretariat of the 

2 For U.S. statements and an unofficial text of the 
plan of action, see Bulletin of Sept. 30, 1974, p. 429. 


,,..< » 

United Nations rather than toward its op- 
erative provisions.'* The major thrust of the 
attack was to assert the importance (or even 
the precondition) of social and economic de- 
velopment for the reduction of high fertility 
and to reduce the emphasis in the draft on 
population/family planning programs. 

The equilibrium attained by these differ- 
ing emphases is illustrated by the last four 
sentences of paragraph 1 of the plan : 

The explicit aim of the WorW Population Plan of 
Action is to help co-ordinate population trends and 
the trends of economic and social development. The 
basis for an effective solution of population prob- 
lems is, above all, socio-economic transformation. A 
population policy may have a certain success if it 
constitutes an integral part of socio-economic de- 
velopment; its contribution to the solution of world 
development problems is hence only partial, as is 
the case with the other sectoral strategies. Conse- 
quently, the Plan of Action must be considered as an 
important component of the system of international 
strategies and as an instrument of the international 
community for the promotion of economic develop- 
ment, quality of life, human rights and fundamental 

At the same time the working group re- 
tained the language of the draft plan explain- 
ing the interrelation between population vari- 
ables and development variables : 

Population and development are interrelated: Pop- 
ulation variables influence development variables and 
are also influenced by them; the formulation of a 
World Population Plan of Action reflects the inter- 
national community's awareness of the importance 
of population trends for socio-economic development, 
and the socio-economic nature of the recommenda- 
tions contained in this Plan of Action reflects its 
awareness of the crucial role that development plays 
in affecting population trends. (Par. 14(c).) 

A new sentence was added to paragraph 2 
concerning the relation of population policies 
to development : 

Policies whose aim is to affect population trends 
must not be considered substitutes for socio-economic 
development policies but integrated with those poli- 
cies to facilitate the solution of certain problems 
facing developing and developed countries and pro- 
mote a more balanced and rational development. 

It has always been the view of the United 

3 For text of the draft plan of action, see U.N. doc. 
E/CONF. 60/7. 

States that population programs should be 
considered only a part, but an essential part, 
of economic and social development. It was 
and is our view that the importance of social 
and economic strategies and programs had 
been dealt with at length in earlier U.N. doc- 
uments and did not need repetition in the 
Population Plan of Action. 

From our point of view, the introduction 
of language desired by these proponents did 
not change or weaken the plan of action, ex- 
cept to make it somewhat more diffuse. From 
the point of view of the many developing 
countries seeking these changes, their ac- 
complishment quite properly gave them an 
important sense of identification with the 
final document. This is right and good. 

The same group of countries, particularly 
some of the Latin Americans, also opposed 
all concepts of quantitative goals or time 
frames for reduction of birth rates or popu- 
lation growth rates. One of the key provi- 
sions of the draft plan (par. 27(b)) urged 
all countries to : 

Make available, to all persons who so desire, if 
possible by the end of the Second United Nations 
Development Decade, but not later than 1985, the 
necessary information and education about family 
planning and the means to practise family plan- 
ning . . . 

The working group adopted an Argentine 
amendment deleting the reference to 1980 
and 1985 and changing the text to recommend 
that all countries : 

Encourage appropriate education concerning re- 
sponsible parenthood and make available to persons 
who so desire advice and means of achieving it. 
(Par. 29(b).) 

The same group of countries also opposed 
paragraph 35 of the draft plan, which says 

Countries which have a very high birth-rate may 
consider taking action ... to reduce these rates by 
about 5 to 10 per 1,000 before 1985. 

A compromise was reached for a substitute 
that restored the concept of quantitative 
goals and a time frame in less precise but 
broader terms : 

In the light of the principles of this Plan of Ac- 


Department of State Bulletin 

tion, countries which consider their birth rates detri- 
mental to their national purposes are invited to con- 
sider setting quantitative goals and implementing 
policies that may lead to the attainment of such 
goals by 1985. Nothing herein should interfere with 
the sovereignty of any government to adopt or not 
to adopt such quantitative goals. (Par. 37.) 

The countries members of the Economic 
Commission for Asia and the Far East 
(ECAFE) had agreed at the consultative 
meeting on the draft plan of action held in 
Bangkok in May 1974 to propose amendments 
to the plan to strengthen the goals proposed 
in it. These amendments called for developed 
countries to aim for replacement levels of 
fertility by 1985 and stationary populations 
as soon thereafter as practicable and for de- 
veloping countries to seek to attain replace- 
ment levels of fertility in two or three dec- 
ades — all nations to attempt to attain re- 
placement levels by 2000. The intensity of the 
attack on the concept of goals made it impos- 
sible to press for these ECAFE amendments. 

The attention of the press was naturally 
drawn to the controversy over these issues. 
The less dramatic but fundamental substance 
of the plan of action as actually adopted re- 
ceived little attention; yet it constituted the 
real substance of the conference and its ac- 

The final plan is somewhat less urgent in 
tone than the draft submitted by the Secre- 
tariat but, in several ways, more complete 
and with greater potential. It contains 109 
paragraphs, many with several subpara- 
graphs. The sweeping scope and thorough- 
ness of the plan can be fully appreciated only 
by a careful reading and rereading. How- 
ever, the following highlights illustrate its 

That the "explicit aim of the World Popu- 
lation Plan of Action is to help co-ordinate 
population trends and the trends of economic 
and social development" has already been 
noted. The "primary aim" of the plan of ac- 
tion is also asserted to be : 

... to expand and deepen the capacities of coun- 
tries to deal effectively with their national and sub- 
national population problems and to promote an ap- 
propriate international response to their needs by 
increasing international activity in research, the ex- 

change of information, and the provision of assist- 
ance on request. (Par. 15.) 

The plan of action lays down several im- 
portant principles, some for the first time in 
a U.N. document : 

1. Among the first-time statements is the 
assertion that the sovereign right of each na- 
tion to set its own population policies is "to 
be exercised . . . taking into account univer- 
sal solidarity in order to improve the quality 
of life of the peoples of the world." (Par. 
14.) This new provision opens the way to- 
ward increasing responsibility by nations to- 
ward other nations in establishing their na- 
tional population policies. 

2. There is recognized for the first time in 
a single declarative sentence that: 

All couples and individuals have the basic human 
right to decide freely and responsibly the number 
and spacing of their children and to have the infor- 
mation, education and means to do so. (Par. 14(f).) 

3. Also for the first time, a U.N. document 
links the responsibility of childbearers to the 
community : 

The responsibility of couples and individuals in the 
exercise of this right takes into account the needs of 
their living and future children, and their responsi- 
bilities towards the community. (Par. 14(f) contin- 

It is now possible to build on this newly 
stated principle as the right of couples first 
recognized in the Tehran Human Rights 
Proclamation of 1968 has been built on. 4 

4. A sweeping declaration of the right of 
women is included : 

Women have the right to complete integration in 
the development process particularly by means of an 
equal participation in educational, social, economic, 
cultural and political life. In addition the necessary 
measures should be taken to facilitate this integra- 
tion with family responsibilities which should be 
fully shared by both partners. (Par. 14(h).) 

5. A new statement of principles was 
added on resources and environment : 

In the democratic formulation of national popula- 

' For text of the Proclamation of Tehran, adopted 
by the International Conference on Human Rights 
on May 13, 1968, see Bulletin of Sept. 2, 1968, 
p. 258. 

November 11, 1974 


tion goals and policies, consideration must be given, 
together with other economic and social factors, to 
the supplies and characteristics of natural resources 
and to the quality of the environment and particu- 
larly to all aspects of food supply including produc- 
tivity of rural areas; the demand for vital resources 
increases with growing population and with growing 
per capita consumption; attention must be directed 
to the just distribution of resources and to the min- 
imization of wasteful aspects of their use throughout 
the world. (Par. 14 (j).) 

6. The need for international action is ac- 
cepted : 

The growing interdependence among countries 
makes international action increasingly important to 
the solution of development and population prob- 
lems. (Par. 14(k).) 

The plan of action includes recommenda- 
tions for : population goals and policies, pop- 
ulation growth, mortality and morbidity, re- 
production, family formation and the status 
of women, population distribution and inter- 
nal migration, international migration, popu- 
lation structure, socioeconomic policies, data 
collection and analysis, research, develop- 
ment and evolution of population policies, the 
role of national governments and of interna- 
tional cooperation, and monitoring, review, 
and appraisal. 

A score of these recommendations are the 
most important: 

1. Governments should integrate popula- 
tion measures and programs into comprehen- 
sive social and economic plans and programs 
and their integration should be reflected in 
the goals, instrumentalities, and organiza- 
tions for planning within the countries. A 
unit dealing with population aspects should 
be created and placed at a high level of the 
national administrative structure. (Par. 95.) 

2. Countries which consider their popula- 
tion growth hampers attainment of their 
goals should consider adopting population 
policies — through a low level of birth and 
death rates. (Pars. 17-18.) 

3. Developed countries are urged to de- 
velop appropriate policies in population, con- 
sumption, and investment, bearing in mind 

the need for fundamental improvement in in- 
ternational equity. (Par. 14(j).) 

4. Highest priority should be given to re- 
duction in mortality and morbidity, and in- 
crease of life expectancy and programs for 
this purpose should reach rural areas and 
underprivileged groups. (Pars. 20-25.) 

5. Countries should encourage appropriate 
education concerning responsible parenthood 
and make available to persons who so desire 
advice and means of achieving it. (Par. 29 

6. Family planning and related services 
should aim not only at prevention of un- 
wanted pregnancies but also at elimination 
of involuntary sterility or subfecundity to 
enable couples to achieve their desired num- 
ber of children. (Par. 29 (c) .) 

7. Adequately trained auxiliary personnel, 
rural extension, home economics, and social 
workers, and nongovernment channels should 
be used to help provide family planning serv- 
ices and advice. (Par. 29(e).) 

8. Governments with family planning pro- 
grams should consider coordinating them 
with health and other services designed to 
raise the quality of life. (Par. 30.) 

9. Countries wishing to affect fertility lev- 
els should give priority to development pro- 
grams and health and education strategies 
which have a decisive effect upon demo- 
graphic trends, including fertility; interna- 
tional cooperation should give priority to as- 
sisting such national efforts. (Par. 31.) Such 
programs may include reduction in infant 
and child mortality, increased education, par- 
ticularly for females, improvement in the 
status of women, land reform, and support 
in old age. (Par. 32.) 

10. Countries which consider their birth 
rates detrimental to their national purposes 
are invited to set quantitative goals and im- 
plement policies to achieve them by 1985. 
(Par. 37.) 

11. Because the family is the basic unit of 
society, governments should assist families 
as far as possible through legislation and 
services. (Par. 39.) 


Department of State Bulletin 

12. Governments should insure full par- 
ticipation of women in the educational, eco- 
nomic, social, and political life of their coun- 
tries on an equal basis with men — a new pro- 
vision added at Bucharest. (Par. 41.) 

13. A series of recommendations is made 
to stabilize migration within countries, par- 
ticularly policies to reduce the undesirable 
consequences of excessively rapid urbaniza- 
tion and to develop opportunities in rural 
areas and small towns, recognizing the right 
of individuals to move freely within their 
national boundaries. (Pars. 44-50.) 

14. Agreements should be concluded to 
regulate the international migration of work- 
ers and to assure nondiscriminatory treat- 
ment and social services for these workers 
and their families ; also other measures to de- 
crease the "brain drain" from developing 
countries. (Pars. 51-62.) 

15. To assure needed information concern- 
ing population trends, population censuses 
should be taken at regular intervals and in- 
formation concerning births and deaths made 
available at least annually. (Pars. 72-77.) 

16. Research should be intensified to de- 
velop knowledge concerning the social, eco- 
nomic, and political interrelationships with 
population trends; effective means of reduc- 
ing infant and childhood mortality; methods 
for integrating population goals into na- 
tional plans, means of improving the motiva- 
tion of people, analysis of population policies 
in relation to socioeconomic development, 
laws, and institutions; methods of fertility 
regulation to meet the varied requirements 
of individuals and communities, including 
methods requiring no medical supervision; 
the interrelations of health, nutrition, and 
reproductive biology; and methods for im- 
proving the administration, delivery, and uti- 
lization of social services, including family 
planning services. (Pars. 78-80.) 

17. Training of management in population 
dynamics and administration on an interdis- 
ciplinary basis should be provided for medi- 
cal, paramedical, traditional health person- 
nel ; program administrators ; senior govern- 

ment officials ; labor, community, and social 
leaders. Education and information programs 
should be undertaken to bring population in- 
formation to all areas of countries. (Pars. 

18. An important role of governments is 
to determine and assess the population prob- 
lems and needs of their countries in the light 
of their political, social, cultural, religious, 
and economic conditions; such an undertak- 
ing should be carried out systematically and 
periodically so as to provide informed, ra- 
tional, and dynamic decisionmaking in mat- 
ters of population and development. (Par. 

19. International, intergovernmental, and 
nongovernmental agencies and national gov- 
ernments should increase their assistance in 
the population field on request. (Par. 100.) 

20. The plan of action should be closely co- 
ordinated with the International Develop- 
ment Strategy for the Second United Nations 
Development Decade, reviewed in depth at 
five-year intervals, and modified as appropri- 
ate. (Pars. 107-109.) 

The plan of action deals obliquely with 
projections of population growth and con- 
cepts of goals. It notes in paragraph 16 that 
the U.N. medium projections for population 
growth, which has been essentially the best 
estimate of demographers for the most likely 
growth of the world's population, would re- 
sult in little change in population growth 
rates in the next decade. It then introduces 
the concept of the U.N. low projection and 
recognizes that : 

According to the United Nations low variant pro- 
jections, it is estimated that as a result of social 
and economic development and population policies 
as reported by countries in the Second United Na- 
tions Inquiry on Population and Development, popu- 
lation growth rates in the developing countries as a 
whole may decline from the present level of 2.4 per 
cent per annum to about 2 per cent by 1985; and be- 
low 0.7 per cent per annum in the developed coun- 
tries. In this case the worldwide rate of population 
growth would decline from 2 per cent to about 1.7 
per cent. 

November 11, 1974 


These projected reductions are said in 
paragraph 36 to be "consistent with declines 
in the birth rate of the developing countries 
as a whole from the present level of 38 per 
thousand to 30 per thousand by 1985." The 
plan points out that to achieve these levels 
of fertility by 1985 would, of course, "require 
substantial national efforts, by those coun- 
tries concerned, in the field of socio-economic 
development and population policies . . . ." 

These statements are followed by para- 
graph 37, already referred to, which invites 
interested countries to consider setting quan- 
titative goals and implementing policies to 
attain such goals by 1985. 

If efforts to slow population growth along 
the lines of the low projection can be suc- 
cessfully continued, the reduction in the 
world's population in the year 2000, com- 
pared to the medium projection, would be 
approximately 500 million. By the year 2050 
it would be approximately 2 billion. At the 
point when a stationary population would be 
reached, about a hundred years from now, 
the difference would be nearly 3 billion. 

The World Population Plan of Action, de- 
spite its wordiness and often hesitant tone, 
contains all the necessary provisions for ef- 
fective family planning programs and popu- 
lation growth control programs at national 
and international levels. It lacks only plain 
statements of quantitative goals with time 
frames for their accomplishment. These can 
be added by individual national action and 
by development in future U.N. documents. 

The basis for suitable goals exists in para- 
graphs 16, 36, 37, and 107, referred to above. 
The concept of the U.N. low-variant projec- 
tion used in these paragraphs is close to the 
goals proposed by the United States and 
other ECAFE nations already mentioned. 
The dangerous situation evidenced by the 
current food situation and projections for 
the future make it essential to press for the 
realization of these goals. 

This assessment, directed at the amend- 
ment and adoption of the World Population 
Plan of Action, does not do justice to the ac- 
complishments of the three committees of the 
whole, on Population Change and Economic 
and Social Development; Population, Re- 

sources and Environment; and Population 
and the Family. Each of these considered the 
interrelation of population factors and their 
particular subject matter and adopted rele- 
vant resolutions of a positive content. These 
are extensive and important in their own 
right and deserve a separate, detailed assess- 

The U.S. delegation to the conference gave 
four undertakings of considerable future im- 
portance. From the U.S. point of view we 
should consider these also as part of the ac- 
tion agenda coming out of the conference. 
We said : 

First, we will carry out the provision of the World 
Population Plan of Action to the best of our ability. 
Especially we will continue our effort to assure the 
availability of family planning services to all our 

Second, we will undertake a collaborative effort 
with other interested donor countries and U.N. agen- 
cies — especially the World Health Organization 
(WHO), the U.N. Fund for Population Activities 
(UNFPA), the International Bank for Reconstruc- 
tion and Development (IBRD), and the U.N. Chil- 
dren's Fund (UNICEF) — to assist poorer countries 
to develop low-cost basic preventive and curative 
health services, including maternal and child health 
and family planning services, reaching out into re- 
mote rural areas. We have already begun to use our 
communications satellites for medical consultation 
and diagnosis. If desired, we could extend these new 
techniques to family planning organizations and ad- 

Third, we will join with other interested countries 
in a further collaborative effort of national research 
in human reproduction and fertility control covering 
biomedical and socioeconomic factors. 

Fourth, (we) will be glad to join other countries in 
order to seek increased funds for assistance to bi- 
lateral and multilateral health and population pro- 
grams in developing countries that desire our help 
and our voluntary contributions to the U.N. Fund 
for Population- Activities. If other donor countries — 
especially the newly wealthy countries — indicate an 
interest in providing a steady increase in such funds 
over the next 10 years, (we) will bring that message 
home from this conference, and given some evidence 
of world interest, it is quite possible our Congress 
will respond favorably. 

The World Population Conference has pro- 
vided nations, international bodies, private 
organizations, and individuals with an im- 
pressive and valuable agenda for action. It is 
now in the hands of all of us to make its po- 
tential a reality. 


Department of State Bulletin 

President Ford Vetoes Two Versions 
of Bill Restricting Aid to Turkey 

Following are statements by President 
Ford issued October 1 and 8, his remarks of 
October 1U upon signing a message to the 
House of Representatives returning H.J . Res. 
1131 without his approval, the text of that 
message, his statement issued October 15 
following the House vote sustaining the veto, 
the text of a message to the House on October 
17 returning H.J. Res. 1163 without his ap- 
proval, and his statement issued October 18 
concerning H.J. Res. 1167, which he signed 
into law on October 17. 


White House press release dated October 1 

Last night the Eagleton amendment 1 to 
the continuing resolution authority was 
passed by the Senate. Today the continuing 
resolution itself will be brought to a Senate 

It is my conviction that approval of the 
continuing resolution containing the Eagle- 
ton amendment or similar language would de- 
stroy any hope for the success of the initia- 
tives the United States has already taken or 
may take in the future to contribute to a just 
settlement of the Cyprus dispute. This view 
is shared by Secretary of State Kissinger, 
who is now in New York where he is making 
a major effort in his talks with Greek and 
Turkish representatives to bring about prog- 

If the Eagleton amendment or similar lan- 
guage is adopted by the Congress, the United 
States will have lost its negotiating flexibility 
and influence. It thus hurts the very coun- 
tries and objectives it purports to help. 

It is my intention, therefore, to withhold 
my consent to any continuing resolution 
which reaches my desk containing language 
such as that found in the Eagleton amend- 
ment. I can, however, accept and, indeed, 
endorse the language relating to military as- 

sistance to Turkey contained in the continu- 
ing resolution as reported to the full Senate 
by the Senate Appropriations Committee. 2 

I deeply appreciate the constructive efforts 
of the Democratic and Republican leadership 
in both the Senate and House of Representa- 
tives in their support for an amendment 
which would assist the diplomatic efforts of 
Secretary Kissinger in seeking an equitable 
solution to the Cyprus question. I hope a ma- 
jority of the Senate will respond to this bi- 
partisan leadership effort. 


White House press release dated October 8 

Yesterday the House of Representatives, 
once again acting against the almost unan- 
imous advice of its leadership, amended the 
continuing resolution granting funds for our 
foreign aid programs. The amendment re- 
quires an immediate cessation of all U.S. 
military assistance to Turkey and is, in my 
view, a misguided and extremely harmful 

Instead of encouraging the parties involved 
in the Cyprus dispute to return to the nego- 
tiating table, this amendment, if passed by 
the Senate, will mean the indefinite postpone- 
ment of meaningful negotiations. Instead of 
strengthening America's ability to persuade 
the parties to resolve the dispute, it will 
lessen our influence on all the parties con- 
cerned. And it will imperil our relationships 
with our Turkish friends and weaken us in 
the crucial eastern Mediterranean. 

But most tragic of all, a cutoff of arms to 
Turkey will not help Greece or the Greek 
Cypriot people, who have suffered so much 
over the course of the last several months. We 
recognize that we are far from a settlement 
consistent with Greece's honor and dignity. 
We are prepared to exert our efforts in that 
direction. But reckless acts that prevent prog- 
ress toward a Cyprus settlement harm 
Greeks, for it is the Greek Government and 
the Greek Cypriots who have the most to 
gain from a compromise settlement. And it 

1 Cong. Rec, Sept. 30, 1974, p. S17733. 
November 11, 1974 

S. Rept. 1174, 93d Cong., 2d sess. 


is they who have the most to lose from con- 
tinued deadlock. 

Thus I call upon the Senate to accept the 
original conference report language on Turk- 
ish arms aid :i and to return the bill to the 
House of Representatives once again. And I 
ask the House of Representatives to recon- 
sider its hasty act and, working with the 
Senate, pass a bill that will best serve the in- 
terests of peace. 


White House press release dated October 14 

Today, in the interest of preserving the 
ability of the United States to assist the 
Governments of Greece, Turkey, and Cy- 
prus to negotiate a peaceful settlement of 
the Cyprus dispute, I am returning to the 
Congress without my approval the continu- 
ing resolution which the Congress has 
amended to cut off military aid to Turkey. 

In so doing, I want to clear the air of a 
number of misunderstandings concerning the 
U.S. position toward the Cyprus crisis. 

Since the outbreak of the crisis, our objec- 
tives have been to establish a cease-fire, to 
provide humanitarian aid to the refugees, to 
assist the parties toward a negotiation and a 
settlement, and to strengthen and to improve 
our historically friendly ties with Greece, 
Turkey, and Cyprus. 

I have discussed these goals with the bi- 
partisan leadership of the Congress and have 
received their unanimous and vigorous sup- 
port. Our ability to pursue these goals de- 
pends, however, on being able to maintain a 
constructive relationship with the parties in- 
volved. The cutoff of assistance to Turkey is 
destructive of that relationship. 

Further, it in no way helps the Greek peo- 
ple or the people of Cyprus, who have suf- 
fered so much in the past months. In fact, by 
dashing hopes for negotiations, it prolongs 
their suffering. 

We recognize clearly the need to insure 

1 H. Rept. 1424, 93d Cong., 2d sess. 

that the honor and integrity of the Greek peo- 
ple be maintained. We seek a settlement 
which insures that fundamental requirement. 
U.S. friendship with Greece has been estab- 
lished through generations of cooperation 
and mutual respect based on shared values 
and common goals. I intend firmly to carry 
on and strengthen that relationship. 

I cannot, however, carry out this pledge if 
my ability to act in the current crisis is un- 
dercut by restrictions imposed by the Con- 
gress. We all seek a peaceful resolution of 
this problem. We all seek justice for the peo- 
ple of Cyprus. We all seek to maintain the 
strength and cooperation in our relationship 
that is a cornerstone to Western security in 
the Mediterranean. 

It is for these reasons that I return this 
resolution to the Congress and ask that it 
thoughtfully reconsider its position. 

I pledge to continue working closely in 
partnership with the Congress to enable the 
United States to play a useful role in helping 
the parties toward a peaceful resolution of 
the Cyprus dispute. 

I am now signing my veto message, which 
will be delivered today to the Congress. 

Thank you very much. 


White House press release dated October 14 

To the House of Representatives: 

At the beginning of my Administration I 
pledged to work closely and cooperatively 
with the Congress. I believe I have kept that 
promise. I have appeared before two joint 
sessions of the Congress, I have met fre- 
quently with the leadership of both Houses, 
and I have agreed to appear personally be- 
fore a subcommittee of the House of Repre- 
sentatives — a step no other President has un- 
dertaken in more than a century. 

These actions are an earnest of my com- 
mitment to a new partnership between the 
legislative and executive branches of our gov- 
ernment. They reflect my deep belief that the 
antagonisms that have too long divided our 


Department of State Bulletin 

nation must be resolved, that hopes for par- 
tisan advantage must be put aside, and that 
we must get on with the business of doing the 
best we can for our country. 

The cooperation I have received from the 
leadership of the Congress — Democratic and 
Republican alike — has been truly remarka- 
ble. The leaders have advised me and I have 
listened; I have explained my problems to 
them and they have responded with under- 
standing and support. For this I am deeply 

It is, therefore, with deep regret that I am 
returning today without my approval the re- 
cently passed Continuing Resolution, H.J. 
Res. 1131, granting funds for the operation 
of several departments and agencies and for 
the temporary continuation of our foreign 
aid programs. I take this step with great re- 
luctance, but in the belief that I have no 
other choice. 

The Continuing Resolution the Congress 
has passed and sent to me for signature con- 
tains an amendment requiring an immediate 
cut-off of all military assistance to Turkey. 
That amendment was passed despite my own 
public objection to it, and in the face of the 
unanimous opposition of the bipartisan lead- 
ership of both Houses of Congress. It is an 
act which is harmful even to those it pur- 
ports to help. 

The United States is making every effort 
to play a useful role in assisting the parties 
to a resolution of the Cyprus dispute. The 
Continuing Resolution as amended is entirely 
destructive of those efforts. Instead of en- 
couraging the parties involved in the Cyprus 
dispute to return to the negotiating table, an 
arms cut-off to Turkey could mean the indef- 
inite postponement of meaningful negotia- 
tions. Instead of strengthening America's 
ability to persuade the parties to resolve the 
dispute, it would lessen our influence on all 
the parties concerned. It would as well im- 
peril our relationships with our Turkish ally 
and weaken us in the crucial Eastern Med- 
iterranean. It directly jeopardizes the NATO 

Most tragic of all, an arms cut-off would 
not help Greece or the Greek Cypriot people 

who have suffered so tragically over the past 
several months. We recognize that we are 
still far from a settlement consistent with the 
honor and dignity of Greece, and are pre- 
pared to exert our influence to that end. But 
reckless acts that prevent progress toward a 
Cyprus settlement harm Greece, for it is the 
Greek government and the Greek Cypriots 
who have the most to gain from a compromise 
settlement. And it is they who have the most 
to lose from continued deadlock. 

It is for these reasons that I am vetoing 
the bill sent to me. I do so because, should 
this measure become law, it would be impos- 
sible for the United States to continue to play 
any meaningful role in assisting the parties 
to resolve the Cyprus dispute. We would in- 
evitably be forced to withdraw from the ne- 
gotiations because the Congress would have 
taken from us the tools we need to affect the 

My choice, then, is unavoidable; my re- 
sponsibility clear. I ask that the Congress re- 
consider its action and send to me a bill that 
we can all support, a bill that provides the 
flexibility needed to carry forward the for- 
eign policy of the United States. 

Gerald R. Ford. 

The White House, October 14., 197 U. 


White House press release dated October 15 

I am deeply gratified by the House vote 
sustaining my veto of the continuing resolu- 
tion. This wise and responsive action will 
serve the cause of peace on Cyprus while 
maintaining the strength of our vital security 
relationships in the eastern Mediterranean. 

I want to thank the congressional leader- 
ship for its understanding and support. I 
look forward to working in partnership with 
the Congress to enhance the ability of the 
United States to assist the parties in nego- 
tiating a peaceful and lasting resolution of 
the Cyprus dispute and in responding gen- 
erously to the humanitarian relief needs of 
the Cypriot people. At the same time, I ask 


November 11, 1974 


Congress for prompt action to provide con- 
tinued funding, without encumbering restric- 
tions, for the operation of several depart- 
ments and agencies. 


White House press release dated October 17 

To the House of Representatives: 

I greatly regret that for the second time I 
must return without my approval the Contin- 
uing Resolution granting funds for the opera- 
tion of several departments and agencies and 
for the temporary continuation of our for- 
eign aid programs, H.J. Res. 1163. 

My previous veto message and my public 
statements on this matter have clearly ex- 
pressed our objectives with respect to the 
resolution of the Cyprus dispute as well as 
the dangers posed by legislative restrictions 
destroying our ability to assist the parties 
involved. The Congress, despite the best ef- 
forts of the bipartisan leaders of both Houses, 
has for the second time refused to recognize 
the realities of the situation. 

While the language of this new bill is dif- 
ferent, its effect is similar to the earlier Con- 
tinuing Resolution which required my veto 
on October 14. I need not reiterate the ex- 
tensive comments which I made at that time 
and which again compel a veto. The provi- 
sions of this bill as they would apply to Tur- 
key would do nothing to bring an end to the 
suffering of the Cypriot people, would do 
nothing to encourage the two sides to resolve 
the dispute peacefully, and would bring a 
further deterioration of the posture of the 
NATO alliance in the crucial Eastern Med- 
iterranean. It is for these reasons and those 
previously stated that I must reluctantly veto 
the bill before me. 

In addition, I am compelled to point out 
again that should this measure become law, 
the United States would have lost the ability 
to play a useful role in this dispute and 
would in effect have to withdraw from the 
negotiations. Should the Congress force such 
an action, it must do so in the clear knowl- 

edge that it assumes full responsibility for 
the situation which would then prevail. 

I ask that the Congress not choose that 
path but that it reconsider its action and pro- 
vide a bill which will permit the continued 
execution of United States foreign policy in 
a constructive and responsible manner. 

Gerald R. Ford. 

The White House, October 17, 197 A. 


White House press release dated October 18 

I have signed, with serious reservations, 
the continuing resolution (H.J. Res. 1167) 
providing necessary funds after a three-week 
delay for the operation of several depart- 
ments and agencies and for the temporary 
continuation of our foreign aid programs. 

Despite two vetoes of similar versions of 
this bill and my public statements concerning 
the damage to our diplomacy that would re- 
sult from its restrictions on military aid to 
Turkey, Congress has nevertheless persisted 
by clear majorities in a course which I con- 
sider ill advised and dangerous. 

The restrictions imposed in this bill on our 
military assistance to Turkey create serious 
problems. 4 Without substantial benefit to any 

4 H.J. Res. 1167 (Public Law 93-448, approved Oct. 
17) includes the following section: 

"Sec. 6. None of the funds herein made available 
shall be obligated or expended for military assist- 
ance, or for sales of defense articles and services 
(whether for cash or by credit, guaranty, or any 
other means) or for the transportation of any mili- 
tary equipment or supplies to Turkey until and un- 
less the President certifies to the Congress that the 
Government of Turkey is in compliance with the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Foreign Military 
Sales Act, and any agreement entered into under 
such Acts, and that substantial progress toward 
agreement has been made regarding military forces 
in Cyprus: Provided, That the President is author- 
ized to suspend the provisions of this section and , 
said acts if he determines that such suspension will 
further negotiations for a peaceful solution on the 
Cyprus conflict. Any such suspension shall be effec- 
tive only until December 10, 1974, and only if, dur- 
ing that time, Turkey shall observe the ceasefire and 
shall neither increase its forces on Cyprus nor trans- 
fer to Cyprus any U.S. supplied implements of war." 


Department of State Bulletin 

other country, these restrictions threaten our 
relations with a country which is a close ally, 
which is the eastern anchor of an alliance 
vital to the security of the United States, and 
which plays a fundamental role in the stra- 
tegic interests of the United States in the 
eastern Mediterranean area. It is for these 
reasons — the national security interests of 
the United States — that we have been provid- 
ing military assistance to Turkey. 

The problem created by these legislative re- 
strictions with respect to our relations with 
Turkey are not compensated for in any way 
by benefits to Greece or the Greek Cypriots. 
Contrary to the intentions of the supporters 
of these restrictions, this bill can only hinder 
progress toward a settlement of the Cypriot 
dispute, which is so much in the interest of 
both Greece and the people of Cyprus. 

As a result of my vetoes of two earlier ver- 
sions of this continuing resolution, the Con- 
gress has eased the most troublesome of the 
earlier restrictions. Nevertheless, the risks 
created by the remaining ones fail to provide 
compensating benefits. I will, of course, do my 
best to accomplish the goals which we had 
set before the Congress took this action. 
Whatever we can still do to assist in resolving 
the Cyprus dispute will be done. But if we fail 
despite our best efforts, those in the Congress 
who overrode the congressional leadership 
must bear the full responsibility for that 

Congressional Documents 
Relating to Foreign Policy 

93d Congress, 2d Session 

Emergency Marine Fisheries Protection Act of 1974. 
Report, together with minority views, to accom- 
pany S. 1988. S. Rept. 93-1079. August 8, 1974. 
54 pp. 

Hungarian Claims. Report to accompany H.R. 13261. 
S. Rept. 93-1095. August 15, 1974. 12 pp. 

Export-Import Bank Amendments of 1974. Report to 
accompany S. 3917. S. Rept. 93-1097. August 15, 
1974. 47 pp. 

International Nuclear Agreement Congressional Re- 
view Act. Conference report to accompany S. 3698. 
H. Rept. 93-1299. August 19, 1974. 4 pp. 

November 11, 1974 

Progress Toward Independence 
of Portuguese Africa 

Following is a statement made in Commit- 
tee IV (Trusteeship) of the U.N. General 
Assembly on October 11 by U.S. Representa- 
tive Barbara M. White. 

USUN press release 131 dated October 11 

I would like to express my government's 
deep satisfaction with the progress of the 
process of decolonization in Portuguese- 
speaking Africa during the past five months 
— satisfaction that the peoples of these areas 
are now assuming the full rights and respon- 
sibilities of self-government, which are their 
due, and satisfaction that the provisional 
government in Portugal has had the wisdom 
to accept the need for change as well as the 
courage to implement it. 

We are gratified that Portugal's new pol- 
icy already has borne fruit with Guinea- 
Bissau's entry into the community of states 
and membership in this organization. It is 
our hope that the evolution toward independ- 
ence in Mozambique will be peaceful and that 
next year Mozambique, too, will take its seat 
in this body. We also commend the leaders 
of Guinea-Bissau and FRELIMO [Liberation 
Front of Mozambique] for the sense of real- 
ism and compromise they have shown in 
their negotiations with Portugal. We wish 
them well now as they go about the task of 
establishing new governmental institutions 
and policies to execute the will of their peo- 

The existence of several liberation move- 
ments in Angola makes the problem of de- 
colonization in that territory more compli- 
cated than it was in Mozambique and Guinea- 
Bissau. We hope that the movements may 
resolve their differences expeditiously so that 
decolonization can proceed and the establish- 
ment of the structures of a new self-govern- 
ing Angola can begin. 

Other African governments and leaders 
have been of invaluable assistance in helping 
to arrange the negotiations concerning Guin- 
ea-Bissau and Mozambique. So has the dis- 


i 1 i 



tinguished Secretary-General of the United 
Nations, through his timely and statesman- 
like good offices. By helping to eliminate per- 
sistent sources of tensions, they have served 
not only Africa but the world. These coun- 
tries and leaders deserve our hearty thanks 
for their past efforts and encouragement for 
the future. 

It is indeed to the future that we should 
look today. The United States hopes to see 
the process of decolonization continue to a 
peaceful conclusion with the peoples of the 
remaining non-self-governing territories in 
Africa determining their own future. This 
will best serve the interests of the peoples 
themselves, of Africa, and of the world. We 
will do what we can to encourage progress 
toward this end. 


Current Actions 



Agreement amending and extending the international 
coffee agreement, 1968. Approved by the Interna- 
tional Coffee Council at London April 14, 1973. 
Entered into force October 1, 1973. TIAS 7809. 
Notification that constitutional procedures com- 
pleted: Japan, September 26, 1974. 


Protocol 1 annexed to the universal copyright con- 
vention, as revised, concerning the application of 
that convention to works of stateless persons and 

refugees. Done at Paris July 24, 1971. Entered 
into force July 10, 1974. TIAS 7868. 
Protocol 2 annexed to the universal copyright con- 
vention, as revised, concerning the application of 
that convention to the works of certain interna- 
tional organizations. Done at Paris July 24, 1971. 
Entered into force July 10, 1974. TIAS 7868. 
Ratification deposited: Norway, August 13, 1974. 

Load Lines 

Amendments to the international convention on load 
lines, 1966 (TIAS 6331). Adopted at London Oc- 
tober 12, 1971. 1 
Acceptance deposited: Cyprus, October 3, 1974. 

Ocean Dumping 

Convention on the prevention of marine pollution by 
dumping of wastes and other matter, with an- 
nexes. Done at London, Mexico City, Moscow, and 
Washington December 29, 1972. 1 
Ratification deposited: Denmark (not applicable 
to Faroe Islands), October 23, 1974. 

World Heritage 

Convention concerning the protection of the world 
cultural and natural heritage. Done at Paris No- 
vember 16, 1972. 1 
Ratification deposited: Australia, August 22, 1974. 



Agreement for sales of agricultural commodities. 
Signed at Dacca October 4, 1974. Entered into 
force October 4, 1974. 


Agreement relating to payment to the United States 
of the net proceeds from the sale of defense arti- 
cles by Turkey. Effected by exchange of notes at 
Ankara October 9 and 10, 1974. Entered into force 
October 10, 1974, effective July 1, 1974. 

United Kingdom 

Agreement amending the agreement of February 
15, 1960, as amended (TIAS 4425, 6619), relating 
to the establishment and operation of a ballistic 
missile early warning station at Fylingdales Moor. 
Effected by exchange of notes at London October 
3, 1974. Entered into force October 3, 1974. 

1 Not in force. 


Department of State Bulletin 

INDEX November 11,1974 Vol. LXXI,No. 1846 

Africa. Progress Toward Independence of Por- 
tuguese Africa (White) 659 

Agriculture. U.S.S.R. Agrees To Limit Pur- 
chases of U.S. Grain in Current Crop Year 
(Treasury announcement) 648 

American Principles. The Testing of Ameri- 
can Commitment (Kissinger) 643 

China. Secretary Kissinger Interviewed for 
New York Times (transcript of interview 
by James Reston) 629 


Congressional Documents Relating to Foreign 

Policy • 659 

President Ford Vetoes Two Versions of Bill 
Restricting Aid to Turkey (statements, re- 
marks, messages to House of Representa- 
tives) 655 

Cyprus. President Ford Vetoes Two Versions 
of Bill Restricting Aid to Turkey (state- 
ments, remarks, messages to House of Rep- 
resentatives) °55 

Economic Affairs 

U.S.S.R. Agrees To Limit Purchases of U.S. 
Grain in Current Crop Year (Treasury an- 
nouncement) 648 

U.S.-U.S.S.R. Trade and Economic Council 

Meets at Moscow (Simon) 646 

Europe. Secretary Kissinger Interviewed for 
New York Times (transcript of interview by 
James Reston) 629 

Foreign Aid. President Ford Vetoes Two Ver- 
sions of Bill Restricting Aid to Turkey 
(statements, remarks, messages to House 
of Representatives) 655 

Greece. President Ford Vetoes Two Versions 
of Bill Restricting Aid to Turkey (state- 
ments, remarks, messages to House of Rep- 
resentatives) 655 

Latin America. Secretary Kissinger Inter- 
viewed for New York Times (transcript of 
interview by James Reston) 629 

Population. The World Population Conference: 
An Assessment (Claxton) 649 


President Costa Gomes of Portugal Visits 
Washington (joint U.S.-Portuguese commu- 
nique) 646 

Progress Toward Independence of Portuguese 

Africa (White) 659 

Presidential Documents. President Ford Ve- 
toes Two Versions of Bill Restricting Aid to 
Turkey 655 

Trade. U.S.-U.S.S.R. Trade and Economic 

Council Meets at Moscow (Simon) .... 646 

Treaty Information. Current Actions .... 660 

Turkey. President Ford Vetoes Two Versions 
of Bill Restricting Aid to Turkey (state- 
ments, remarks, messages to House of Rep- 
resentatives) 655 


Secretary Kissinger Interviewed for New 
York Times (transcript of interview by 
James Reston) 629 

U.S.S.R. Agrees To Limit Purchases of U.S. 
Grain in Current Crop Year (Treasury an- 
nouncement) 648 

U.S.-U.S.S.R. Trade and Economic Council 

Meets at Moscow (Simon) 646 

United Nations. Progress Toward Independ- 
ence of Portuguese Africa (White) .... 659 

Name Index 

Claxton, Philander P., Jr 649 

Ford, President 655 

Kissinger, Secretary 629, 643 

Simon, William E 646 

White, Barbara M 659 

Check List of Department of State 

Press Releases: October 21-27 

Press releases may be obtained from the Of- 

fice of Press 

Relations, Department of State, 


D.C. 20520. 

Release is 

sued prior to October 21 which 

appears in this issue of the Bulletin is No. 

400 of October 10. 






American education delegation 
visits U.S.S.R. 



Rescheduling of meeting, Study 
Group on Matrimonial Mat- 
ters, Secretary's Advisory 
Committee on Private Interna- 
tional Law. 



Joffrey Ballet to tour Soviet Un- 
ion, Nov. 16-Dec. 14. 



Kissinger: arrival, Moscow. 



Kissinger, Gromyko: exchange 
of toasts. 



Delegation of Soviet youth to 
study U.S. elections, Oct. 25- 

Nov. 7. 



Advisory Committee for Foreign 
Service Institute, Dec. 2. 



Study Group on Agency, Secre- 
tary's Advisory Committee on 
Private International Law, 
Chicago, Nov. 21. 



Transportation officials to tour 



Kissinger: departure, Moscow. 



U.S.-U.S.S.R. joint communique. 



Kissinger: arrival, New Delhi. 



Kissinger, Chavan: exchange of 
toasts, New Delhi. 


* Not prinl 

f Held for 

a later issue of the Bulletin. 

I 1 w 
!! I 


Superintendent of Documents 

us. government printing office 




Special Fourth-Clou Rote 




mm ii. 


Subscription Renewals: To insure uninterrupted 
service, please renew your subscription promptly 
when you receive the expiration notice from the 
Superintendent of Documents. Due to the time re- 
quired to process renewals, notices are sent out 3 
months in advance of the expiration date. Any prob- 
lems involving your subscription will receive im- 
mediate attention if you write to: Director, Office 
of Media Services (PA/MS), Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 





Volume LXXI 

No. 1847 

November 18, 1974 





A Tabular Summary 677 


For index see inside back cover 




Vol. LXXI, No. 1847 
November 18, 1974 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


!">2 issues plus semiannual indexes, 

domestic $29.80. foreign $37.25 

Single copy 60 cents 

Use of funds for printing this publication 

approved by the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (January 29, 1971). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 

copyrighted and items contained herein may be 

reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 

appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 

the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, provides the public and 
interested agencies of the government 
with information on developments in 
the field of U.S. foreign relations and 
on the work of the Department and 
the Foreign Service. 
The BULLETIN includes selected 
press releases on foreign policy, issued 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements, addresses, 
and news conferences of the President 
and the Secretary of State and other 
officers of the Department, as well as 
special articles on various phases of 
international affairs and the functions 
of the Department. Information is 
included concerning treaties and inter- 
national agreements to which the 
United States is or may become a 
party and on treaties of general inter- 
national interest. 

Publications of the Department of 
Stale, United Nations documents, and 
legislative material in the field of 
international relations are also listed. 

President Ford Meets With President Echeverria of Mexico 

President Ford and President Luis Eche- 
verria of the United Mexican States held 
meetings at Magdalena de Kino, Sonora, 
Mexico, and Tubac, Ariz., on October 21. 
Following are remarks exchanged by the two 
Presidents upon President Ford's arrival at 
Nogales, Sonora, Mexico; their exchange of 
toasts at a luncheon at Tubac, Ariz.; the 
transcript of their news conference at Tu- 
bac; and their exchange of remarks at Davis- 
Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, Ariz., 
upon departure. 

Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents dated October 28 


President Echeverria 1 

Your Excellency, Mr. Gerald Ford, Presi- 
dent of the United States of America: We 
bid you welcome to Mexico. The people of 
Mexico receive you with the expression of 
their friendship for the American people. 
Through me, our people wish to offer you the 
most cordial welcome, to convey a cordial 
greeting which we would ask you to take 
back with you for all the American people. 

Coexistence between Mexico and the 
United States of America has been a long 
one. We have an extensive borderline be- 
tween us. And all along this border for a 
long time now the sometimes dramatic and 
even tragic problems have been left behind. 

During the last decades, it has been pos- 
sible to solve the problems that affect us both 
through civilized practices by applying 
norms of law and of reciprocal respect. And 
now during the very difficult period that the 
entire world is living through, we both — the 
United States, in these difficult times, and 
Mexico — are making efforts so that our co- 

existence will be a harmonious one, an un- 
derstanding one, and a respectful one. 

In our country, within our country do- 
mestically, we are struggling to foster social 
justice in accordance with old moral guide- 
lines and with a spirit of cooperation which 
we believe would benefit all the countries of 
the world. 

Internationally, we struggle to achieve 
norms of cooperation, balance, understand- 
ing on the part of each nation for all other 
countries. In Mexico, we believe that infla- 
tion is only one of the manifestations of lack 
of balance between the interests of the one 
and the other — between the rich and the 
poor, between the people that are just devel- 
oping and the industrialized countries. We 
feel that we have to reach an equilibrium in 
order to fight against these problems. And 
we believe that it is possible that we can 
trust international relations and that we can 
find a system of cooperation that would lead 
to international balance, that would lead to 
peace and not to war. 

We should understand that whatever prob- 
lem comes up in any corner of the world — 
in Asia, Africa, Oceania, Latin America — 
are problems that affect all of us, even the 
richest and most industrialized countries, be- 
cause we must understand that the destiny 
of mankind is one and indivisible. 

President Ford, this is the doctrine of 
Mexico, sir, with which we receive you with 
great cordiality. We want you to feel at 
home among us. 

President Ford 

Mr. President, amigos: I am delighted to 
be here this morning to meet with you on 



1 President Echeverria spoke Spanish on all occa- 

November 18, 1974 


our border at Nogales. I am delighted and 
highly honored to participate in these meet- 
ings today which will be partly held in Mex- 
ico and partly held in the United States, 
which symbolizes, Mr. President, the rela- 
tionship between our two countries. 

It is a working partnership of mutual co- 
operation which exemplifies the spirit be- 
hind the new dialogue into which we have 
entered with all nations of Latin America 
and which we will not forget, Mr. President, 
which started last year at Tlatelolco in Mex- 
ico City. 

In our meetings today, Mr. President, let 
us give new meaning to the special relation- 
ship of us as two good neighbors — Mexico 
and the United States — through frank and 
friendly consultations. 

It is very significant, Mr. President, that 
my first trip outside of the United States as 
President of our country is to Mexico, our 
longtime friend and very good neighbor. It 
provides a living demonstration of how we 
are inextricably linked by historical ties, by 
geographical position, by our mutual desire 
to be good neighbors. 

It is my fervent wish that this meeting 
will mark the beginning of a very close per- 
sonal relationship between us and contribute 
to the close cooperation and the very friend- 
ly relation of our peoples and our govern- 

Our relationship is of very great mutual 
benefit. Each of our countries, Mr. Presi- 
dent, receives much from the other — mate- 
rial goods of all kinds, increased understand- 
ing through tourism and cultural exchanges, 
and the enrichment of human life and con- 
sciousness through expanded knowledge and 
warm, warm friendship. 

This exchange is especially evident in the 
border area. I thank all of you who have 
come here to welcome me and to see this 
spirit of friendship which exists between 
President Echeverria and myself represent- 
ing our two countries. 

Actually, we witness today the flow of 
people, goods, food, music, art, and language. 
We note the existence of a binational com- 
mission — not one, but several — and bina- 
tional groups of many kinds. We see the 

efforts by people on both sides of the border 
to work together in a joint effort to solve the 
everyday problems of their respective lives. 

There are countless other instances dem- 
onstrating the strong, the vital, the flourish- 
ing, and friendly relations that exist be- 
tween us. And in this border area, Mr. Pres- 
ident, we also see living examples of how 
two governments disposed to work together 
in good will can meet and solve problems. 

Along our common border, we have jointly 
faced and together resolved problems of 
flood control, sanitation, minor border ad- 
justments necessitated by the vagaries of the 
Rio Grande. 

We are extremely proud, Mr. President, 
of our recent resolution of longstanding and 
complex issues involving the salinity of the 
water of the Colorado River delivered to 
your country. Our successful efforts in these 
areas over the past few years are precedents 
for the solution of problems that may arise 
in the future. We must continue to draw 
upon the spirit of mutual respect, good will, 
which made this cooperation possible in the 

Mr. President, let us today consider how 
we can cooperate in solving common prob- 
lems which will result in a better and better 
life for the people of our two countries and 
for all the people everywhere. 

Muchas gracias. 


President Ford 

Mr. President, distinguished guests, 
friends : I am very pleased to have the oppor- 
tunity to have our distinguished guest here in 
Tubac, Arizona, and to reciprocate on this 
occasion for the warm welcome that he and 
the people of Mexico gave to me and to the 
American people during the day, which was 
an unbelievably pleasant, warm, and just a« 
wonderful opportunity to be together. 

I am most grateful to you, Mr. President, 
for having suggested that we meet in Mag- 
dalena de Kino for the meetings that we had 
during the day. Your sense of history, your 


Department of State Bulletin 

understanding of the great role that Father 
Kino played in the history of this part of the 
world, made it an ideal setting for the discus- 
sions that we had on very important matters. 

Mr. President, the Jesuit priest whose 
statue is in the U.S. Capitol and whose statue 
is in the state capitol of Sonora and the capi- 
tol of Arizona lived and worked here almost 
three centuries ago. His efforts gave the first 
great stimulant to progress among the people 
of this part of the North American Continent, 
and we are all proud of his contribution to 
this flourishing part of our nation as well as 

Mr. President, with the horse, the cross, 
and the plow, he explored this area of your 
country as well as ours. He not only served 
his faith, Mr. President, but he also intro- 
duced agriculture, livestock, to the inhabi- 
tants of this area. And all of these ingredi- 
ents, Mr. President, are vital to the progress 
of your country as well as ours. 

Father Kino lives in the memories of those 
in the town that we visited this morning. On 
both sides of the border we owe him a very 
great debt of gratitude. The heritage of 
Father Kino is an inspiration for all of us to 
continue the work that he started three cen- 
turies ago. 

Mr. President, as I am sure you realize, 
I am a great believer in personal dialogue. I 
believe that the straight talk that you and I 
had today contributed significantly to a bet- 
ter understanding, greater cooperation, and 
greater potentialities for your country as 
well as ours. 

Mr. President, we had straight talk today 
with openness and candor, and as a result, it 
seems to me that the relationship between 
your country and mine has increased very 

Your great patriot Benito Juarez said over 
100 years ago, and I quote, "Respect for the 
rights of others is peace." And this relation- 
ship that has been built between Mexico and 
the United States is built on that foundation, 
which is solid rock. 

Mr. President, we have discussed a number 
of very important issues, and we have done 
it with openness and candor, and the spirit 

that we discussed these matters, I think, will 
be the foundation upon which we can con- 
tinue the dialogue — a dialogue that will be 
beneficial to Mexico as well as to the United 
States, to Latin America, and to the world 
as a whole. 

Mr. President, we are greatly honored to 
have on the soil of the United States the Pres- 
ident of Mexico and his official party. We be- 
lieve that the relationship between us will 
grow from this beginning under my admin- 
istration and during your time as President, 
and we will work together to build a better 
and better world in this hemisphere as well 
as throughout the globe. 

May I offer a toast to the President of Mex- 
ico and to the people of the great country of 
Mexico and to the growing and improved re- 
lationships between our people, our country, 
and you and myself. 

President Echeverria 

Mr. President of the United States of 
America: I believe, Mr. President, that 
among the many important points of agree- 
ment that we have reached during this very 
brief visit — but a very intensive one — we can 
mention the enormous success of this visit. 

The cordiality, the expressions of welcome 
and affection with which you have been re- 
ceived in Magdalena and in Nogales, we all 
know would have been the same whatever 
part of the country you would have visited. 

It is not only the fact of the coexistence be- 
tween Mexicans and North Americans and 
U.S. citizens that intensifies the bonds that 
bring our two countries together; it is not 
only the relationship that exists on the two 
sides of the border. It is the fact that 
throughout all our history, the American his- 
tory and the Mexican history, we have been 
able to bring up our problems very openly; 
we have been able to foster and foment our 

When you and I, Mr. President, explored 
the different possibilities of meeting along 
the border area, we decided to meet in this 
vast region which was at that time a desert 
and which Father Kino discovered and civi- 


November 18, 1974 


lized. Father Kino's untiring work, Father 
Kino's great foresight and vision, and all his 
dedication are examples that are to be fol- 
lowed in the work that needs to be done in 
this very vast desert area in which we are at 

In researching the work that was done by 
Father Kino, many students of the United 
States and many students of history of Mex- 
ico participated, and similarly to the way in 
which they joined forces and participated, we 
can join forces in order to solve the problems 
of the United States and of Mexico. 

May I say out loud, Mr. President, that to 
deal with you personally is very gratifying, 
that, very simply and very directly and fully 
informed, you take up the most complex mat- 
ters, that you do not elude the problems with 
a great many high-sounding phrases, and 
that it is easy to perceive that you are embued 
with-good faith in our bilateral relations, and 
that this will be beneficial for an interna- 
tional life which every day becomes more 
complex throughout the world and which 
makes it necessary for political leaders to 
contribute with the greatest intelligence and 
experience and all of their good will. 

We know that the world is living through 
very difficult times and that it is only through 
the spirit of understanding, of frankness, 
that we can transcend these difficult times so 
that they will not become too long. 

And, Mr. President, I do believe that if in 
the future the problems and all other matters 
that should come up are to be dealt with as 
we have dealt with our problems today in 
this border area, we will have done a great 
deal to lighten our burden and to solve these 

Mr. President, it has been a great pleasure 
for me to meet you personally, to dialogue 
with you, Mr. President, in the direct and 
clear manner in which you speak, not only 
from conviction but also because this is your 
way. And in Mexico, we have no doubt that 
this is a very, very favorable sign so that the 
friendship between the two countries will be- 
come deeper and will continue into the fu- 
ture, strengthened, vigorous, and without 
ever being blemished. 

Gentlemen, I offer a toast to the health of 
the President of the United States and of the 
friendship of the two countries. 


President Ford: It has been a very great 
privilege and pleasure, Mr. President, to 
have the opportunity of visiting your coun- 
try today and to discuss with you a number 
of very important issues. And let me just 
emphasize one. 

You, of course, are the author and pro- 
moter of some very far-reaching action in 
the United Nations which, we believe, as a 
charter for economic development through- 
out the world, has very great merit and very 
great support, and I compliment you for it. 
And I can assure you that I and Secretary 
Kissinger will work with you and others in 
your government in trying to find the key 
and the answer to the economic development 
of all parts of our great globe. 

It is nice to have you in the United States, 
and I thank you for the warm welcome given 
to me by you as well as all the people of 


Q. / woidd like to address a question to 
both Presidents. Among the issues you dis- 
cussed today, was there a discussion of 
American access to the recently discovered 
oil deposits in southern Mexico, and could 
you give us an estimate of the size of those 
deposits ? 

President Echeverria: Yes, Mexico is sell- 
ing to whoever wants to buy the oil at the 
market price in the world market. We sell 
our surplus oil. I hope that we can drill for 
more oil in Mexico in order to be able to 
export a greater amount. We have sold to 
the United States, to Uruguay, to Brazil, 
and to Israel, and we hope to continue to sell 
without making any differences among the 
buyers in order to contribute to satisfy the 

Q. I would like to know, President Ford, if, 
during your talks, there was any mention 


Department of State Bulletin 


made of the Trade Reform Act and, if so, 
tvhat are the repercussions that this will have 
for Mexico ? 

President Ford: I am very happy and very 
pleased that you raised the question. The 
new trade legislation, which I hope will pass 
the Congress this year, will significantly in- 
crease the trade relations between Mexico 
and the United States, helping to balance the 
trade between Mexico and the United States. 
This trade legislation, which I have worked 
very hard to promote, which I believe will 
pass the U.S. Senate and, I believe, the Con- 
gress, will be very helpful in making good 
trade relations between the United States 
and Mexico. 

Q. Can you tell us whether any progress 
has been made on a new approach resolving 
the question of migrant farmworkers from 
Mexico and the related questions involved in 

President Echeverria: Yes. Yes, we did dis- 
cuss this point, and I brought it up in the 
name of Mexico — I told the President of the 
United States that we have definitely desisted 
from our intention of signing an agreement, 
and this is due to the fact that we made a re- 
vision of the previous agreement and we saw 
that in practice, in the way it works, it is not 
good. It gives opposite results from the ones 
we want. 

What happened at that time was that, at- 
tracted by this agreement that we had with 
the United States, the migrant workers, or 
the would-be migrant workers, would come 
to the border cities of the United States. And 
then it happened that they did not receive a 
contract, and then they stayed at the border 
city and increased the number of the popula- 
tion or else they went illegally into the United 

Now, with the policy of self-criticism that 
at present prevails in Mexico, we have re- 
viewed this matter, and we have come to 
realize and accept that the responsibility be- 
longs to Mexico. 

In Mexico, we need to increase the sources 
of employment. We need to send more re- 

sources out into the countryside. We need to 
organize the farmers in a better way. We 
need to keep them within the land. I do not 
know if President Ford has anything to add, 
because we analyzed this point jointly. 

President Ford: As you can see, we dis- 
cussed this matter in great depth. It has a 
long history. It has current problems. In fact, 
we have some new problems. And in order to 
get an up-to-date reading on what should be 
done, how we can best help, we have decided 
to reanalyze through a commission that will 
bring up the data that involves those going 
from Mexico to the United States and will 
update data that will involve individuals who 
are in the United States seeking employment, 
trying to find the right answer. And this re- 
vitalized commission, I think, will give both 
of us and our countries better answers to 
solve the problem. 

President Echeverria: Now, however, 
there is a point that Mexico insists upon in 
reference to the migrant workers — whether 
they are legally in the country or illegally in 
the country. That is, Mexico insists that they 
enjoy the rights and prerogatives that is 
granted by the law to any person. 

When a person is contracted legally and 
comes to work in the United States, this per- 
son under contract has certain rights — the 
right to a decent salary, the right to social 
security, and, that is to say, all the rights 
that are granted by the law. This is when the 
person comes to work legally. 

Now, if the migrant worker comes in il- 
legally, he still has some rights that must be 
observed — this is basic. 

Q. I have a question for President Ford. I 
would like to ask President Ford whether the 
hemispheric problems were taken up and, if 
they did take up the hemispheric problems, 
what is the attitude of the United States with 
reference to Cuba and if this attitude is to be 
maintained at the next conference of Foreign 

President Ford: We did take up the ques- 
tion of the U.S. attitude toward Cuba. I indi- 
cated that we had not seen any change in the 
attitude of Mr. Castro or any of the other in- 



November 18, 1974 


dividuals in the Cuban Government and, in- 
asmuch as there had been no change, no atti- 
tude that was different regarding the United 
States, it was not expected that our attitude 
would change toward Cuba. 

We did discuss the meeting that is to be 
held in Quito, I think, on November 7 or 8, 
where the matter will be brought before the 
OAS. But our attitude, as of the present time, 
is since no change in the attitude of Cuba, we 
certainly have to retain our point of view con- 
cerning them. 

Q. President Echeverria, I wonder if you 
could answer one part of Mr. Shaw's [Gay- 
lord Shaiv, Associated Press] question which 
was not ansivered, and that is, can you give 
us some estimate of the size of the new oil 
discovery in Mexico? 

President Echeverria: Yes, the discoveries 
are very important and significant, and the 
significance we can find in the following fig- 
ures: Of the 640,000 barrels a day that are 
obtained throughout all of Mexico, 37 per- 
cent — that is 241,000 barrels — come from 
only a few wells. This has made it possible 
for us now to begin to export, after having 
transcended the stage where it was necessary 
for us to import in order to satisfy our own 

Therefore this is very important for the 
Mexican economy, first and foremost, if we 
take into account the prices that prevail for 
oil in the world market, prices which we re- 

Q. This is a question for both Presidents. 
Can you give us a list of the specific agree- 
ments that you reached today? 

President Echeverria: Actually, no, we did 
not come to international agreements. It was 
the first meeting between the President of the 
United States and the President of Mexico in 
order to get together to discuss, to analyze, 
very frankly, very openly, very clearly, very 
directly, some of the problems that have al- 
ready been dealt with in this room. 

For me, the most important part of our 
meeting is the way in which President Ford 
underlined to me personally, and later on here 
during our meeting in this place, the impor- 

tance that he gives the Charter of Economic 
Rights and Duties of States. 

And I thank President Ford and the people 
of the United States for this opinion that has 
been expressed to me because, actually, this 
is a complete change from what it was before, 
and this is very valuable support for this 
charter that is gaining ground within the 
United Nations, and for the already 100-and- 
some-odd countries that are supporting the 

The United States had never before ex- 
pressed as much interest as it has now in the 
approval of the Charter of Economic Rights 
and Duties of States. Of course, it rather 
matters that we still have to elucidate, that 
we have to define, but I feel very optimistic 
that we shall. 

The press: Muchas gracias. 


President Ford 

Mr. President: It has been a very great 
privilege and an extremely high honor for 
me to have had this opportunity early in my 
administration to meet with you and your 
very distinguished delegation, to have visited 
Nogales and Magdalena de Kino in your very 
great nation, and to have had the honor of 
your hospitality in Tubac. Let me say that the 
reception received in Magdalena, in Nogales, 
was unbelievable, and I can say to all of my 
friends here in Arizona we could not have 
had a warmer greeting and a friendlier re- 

Now, Mr. President, the time has been all 
too short, but what we have shared together 
has been most valuable to me in the handling 
of the problems that we see down the road. 
It provided a very opportune moment for a 
warm welcome, to know you personally, to be 
able to establish a close personal friendship — 
the friendship between the Presidents of two 
great countries — a neighbor to the north for 
Mexico and a good neighbor to the south from 
the United States. This opportunity provided 
us the establishment of a firsthand dialogue, 


Department of State Bulletin 


which is so important in the understanding 
and cooperation of our peoples and our gov- 
ernments. It provided a chance, Mr. Presi- 
dent, to hear your points of view representing 
your great country and your great people on 
matters of mutual concern to our countries 
and to give me an opportunity to express to 
you the views of our people and our govern- 

To me, Mr. President, the personal rela- 
tionship we have initiated today is equal to 
the substantive discussions we have held. I 
am confident that the meeting beginning early 
today and ending shortly will be only the be- 
ginning of a close personal relationship, an 
important link in the special relationship 
which unites our countries. 

Mr. President, during my short visit to 
your side of the border this morning, you and 
the people made me feel very much at home, 
and I assure you that the warmth of this 
friendship by our people to you I hope equals 
that of your people to me. 

As I say goodby and take leave, let me wish 
you a safe and pleasant return journey, Mr. 
President. I will not say goodby, but rather, 
following the tradition of your country, I 
will say hasta luego. 

I know there will be other opportunities in 
the future to meet, to discuss the vital ques- 
tions, but, more importantly, to get better 

It is a privilege and a pleasure to have had 
this opportunity on your border and ours. 
Mr. President, I thank you. 

President Echeverria 

President Ford : It is only due to the great 
spirit of friendship which unites our two 
countries that it has been possible in a few 
hours, and without any personal contact be- 
tween the two of us previously — it has been 
possible, I repeat, to revise the enormous 
amount of matters that we have between our 
two countries. 

We are practicing — and this is well for the 
people of the United States and for the peo- 
ple of Mexico to know — we are practicing a 
simple type of democracy, a democracy in 
which there is no secrets, a democracy in 

which there is nothing hidden, a democracy 
that is characterized by frankness. 

I believe that this conference between the 
United States and Mexico can set an exam- 
ple — can set an example that should be fol- 
lowed by all, by the great and the small coun- 
tries, by the industrialized nations and the 
developing nations. 

I see that from here on in, with good will, 
with the study of our common problems, with 
mutual understanding, the relationship be- 
tween our two governments will improve. 

Mr. President, in expressing my gratitude 
for your personal acquaintance, Mr. Presi- 
dent, and for the hospitality that has been 
shown to us by the United States and also 
this expression of good will on the part of 
the people of the United States, I, too, wish 
to say hasta luego, until we meet again, be- 
cause we hope that we will have you in Mex- 
ico City so that the Mexican people will get 
to know you as I do. 

Mr. President, in taking my leave, I do so 
with a warm handshake, with an abrazo, 
Mexican style — with an embrace that we hope 
will travel to all the homes of the United 
States and convey the great affection of Mex- 

Senate Confirms U.S. Delegation 
to UNESCO General Conference 

The Senate on October 10 confirmed the 
nominations of the following-named persons 
to be Representatives and Alternate Repre- 
sentatives of the United States to the 18th 
session of the General Conference of the 
United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organization : 


R. Miller Upton 
William B. Jones 
Rosemary L. Ginn 
E. Ross Adair 
Gordon H. Scherer 

Alternate Representatives 

Stephen Hess 
William G. Harley 
J. Roger Porter 

November 18, 1974 


U.S. Congratulates Mozambique's 
Joint Transitional Government 

Following is an informal translation of a 
letter sent by Peter Walker, U.S. Consul 
General at Lourengo Marques, to Joaquim 
Alberto Chissano, Prime Minister of the 
Transitional Government of Mozambique, on 
September 20 upon the installation of the 
Transitional Government. 

retary of State Kissinger to the General As- 
sembly of the United Nations. 1 

Accept, Mr. Prime Minister, sincere ex- 
pressions of my respect and highest consid- 

Peter Walker 

Consul General of the 

United States of America 

September 20, 1974. 

Excellency: The Government of the 
United States of America has instructed me 
to express the congratulations and the pleas- 
ure of the people and Government of the 
United States for the successful conclusion of 
the negotiations which culminated in the in- 
stallation of the government which will pre- 
side over the period of Mozambique's transi- 
tion to independence. 

The policy of the United States toward the 
peoples of Africa has long been one of sup- 
port for their self-determination, and thus 
the United States strongly supports the ef- 
forts of the Portuguese Government in the 
decolonization of its African territories. 

The Government of the United States is 
fully aware that the installation of the Tran- 
sitional Government in Mozambique repre- 
sents an important step toward the imple- 
mentation of this policy of decolonization, 
and is convinced that the goodwill and en- 
lightened leadership that made that step pos- 
sible should also lead to the successful com- 
pletion of the decolonization process next 

The Government of the United States of 
America is hopeful that the friendship that 
has long existed between the people of the 
United States and the people of Mozambique 
will result in a relationship of increasing un- 
derstanding and cooperation as Mozambique 
proceeds to independence. 

I am pleased to enclose, for the informa- 
tion of Your Excellency, excerpts from the 
speeches delivered recently by the President 
of the United States of America and by Sec- 

Telecommunication Convention 
Transmitted to the Senate 

Message From President Ford 2 

To the Senate of the United States: 

For advice and consent to ratification, 
I herewith transmit to the Senate the In- 
ternational Telecommunication Convention 
reached at Malaga-Torremolinos on October 
25, 1973. This transmittal also includes the 
Annexes and Final Protocol to the Conven- 
tion, as well as a report by the Department 
of State. 

This new Convention will abrogate and re- 
place the International Telecommunication 
Convention of 1965. It generally follows the 

1 Excerpt from an address made before the U.N. 
General Assembly on Sept. 18 by President Ford: 

" — We rededicate ourselves to the search for jus- 
tice, equality, and freedom. Recent developments in 
Africa signal the welcome end of colonialism. Be- 
havior appropriate to an era of dependence must give 
way to the new responsibilities of an era of interde- 

Excerpt from an address made before the U.N. 
General Assembly on Sept. 23 by Secretary Kissin- 

"The United States notes with particular satisfac- 
tion the continuing process of change in Africa. We 
welcome the positive demonstration of cooperation 
between the old rulers and the new free. The United 
States shares and pledges its support for the aspira- 
tions of all Africans to participate in the fruits of 
freedom and human dignity." 

2 Transmitted on Oct. 17 (text from White House 
press release); also printed as S. Ex. J, 93d Cong., 
2d sess., which includes the texts of the convention, 
annexes, and protocol and the report of the Depart- 
ment of State. 


Department of State Bulletin 


provisions of the 1965 Convention with a con- 
siderable number of minor improvements and 
a few major modifications to take account of 
technical developments in the field and devel- 
opments in international organizations. 

One notable change from the 1965 Conven- 
tion is the deletion of the separate member- 
ship of the territories of the several member 
States, including the United States. Although 
this change will deprive the United States of 
its vote on behalf of the territories, the re- 
distribution of financial obligations which ac- 
company this change will result in a relatively 
lower financial contribution from this coun- 

The International Telecommunication Con- 
vention constitutes the procedural and orga- 
nizational framework for the orderly conduct 
of international telecommunications, and it 
is in the public and commercial interest of 
the United States to continue to play an ac- 
tive role within this framework. I recom- 
mend that the Senate give early and favor- 
able consideration to this new Convention, 
and subject to a reservation noted in the 
State Department report, give its advice and 
consent to ratification. 

Gerald R. Ford. 

The White House, October 17, 197 h. 

Notice of Time for Filing Claims 
Against Egypt by U.S. Nationals 

Department Announcement l 

On July 14, 1974, the Governments of the 
United States and of the Arab Republic of 
Egypt agreed to establish a Joint Committee 
to discuss compensation of U.S. nationals 
for their property in Egypt, with a view to 
reaching an appropriate settlement. 

U.S. nationals who have claims against the 
Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt 
for the nationalization, expropriation or se- 

1 Issued on Oct. 18 (press release 429). 

questration of, or other measures directed 
against their property by the Government 
of the Arab Republic of Egypt should file 
their claims with the Department of State, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, 2201 C Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20520, during the 
period beginning October 22, 1974, and end- 
ing January 22, 1975. 

U.S. nationals who, prior to June 1967, 
had communicated with either or both the 
American Embassy at Cairo and the Amer- 
ican Consulate General in Alexandria, Egypt, 
concerning the nationalization, expropria- 
tion or sequestration of, or other measures 
directed against their property by the Gov- 
ernment of the Arab Republic of Egypt 
should write to the Department of State, Of- 
fice of the Legal Adviser, regarding the up- 
dating and the further preparation and de- 
velopment of their claims during the period 
October 22, 1974, to January 22, 1975. 

Congressional Documents 
Relating to Foreign Policy 

93d Congress, 2d Session 

Oil and Asian Rivals — Sino-Soviet Conflict; Japan 
and the Oil Crisis. Hearings before the Sub- 
committee on Asian and Pacific Affairs of the 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 93d Con- 
gress, first and second sessions. September 12, 
1973-March 6, 1974. 476 pp. 

Human Rights in Chile. Hearings before the Sub- 
committees on Inter-American Affairs and on 
International Organizations and Movements of the 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs. December 
7, 1973-June 18, 1974. 215 pp. 

Foreign Investment in the United States. Hearings 
before the Subcommittee on Foreign Economic 
Policy of the House Committee on Foreign Af- 
fairs. January 29-February 21, 1974. 478 pp. 

Critical Developments in Namibia. Hearings before 
the Subcommittee on Africa of the House Com- 
mittee on Foreign Affairs. February 21-April 4, 
1974. 305 pp. 

Global Scarcities in an Interdependent World. Hear- 
ings before the Subcommittee on Foreign Eco- 
nomic Policy of the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs. May 1-22, 1974. 259 pp. 

U.S. Participation in African Development Fund. 
Hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign 
Relations. June 27, 1974. 66 pp. 


November 18, 1974 



U.S. Reviews Disaster Relief Efforts 
for Hurricane Victims in Honduras 

Following is a statement made in the U.N. 
Economic Commission for Latin America by 
U.S. Representative Clarence Clyde Fergu- 
son, Jr., on October 21. 

USUN press release 141 dated October 21 

The Government of the United States and 
our people should like again to express our 
deepest sympathy to the government and 
people of Honduras, who have suffered so 
much from the devastation of Hurricane Fifi. 
Perhaps we shall never know the toll in lives 
lost in this most terrible disaster; we shall 
never know how many tens of thousands of 
Hondurans were left homeless; we shall 
never know how many millions of dollars in 
productive capacity vanished with the winds. 
We do know, however, that for the people of 
Honduras the dimensions of the disaster are 
enormous and that there is an undeniably 
pressing need for international relief and re- 
covery assistance. 

The distinguished Foreign Minister of 
Honduras has already spoken of the kinds 
and levels of help his country will require, 
and he has told us of the efforts of the govern- 
ment and people of Honduras to do what they 
can to deal with the immediate and longer 
term emergency problems. 

We in this hemisphere know the enormous 
devastation in human and economic terms 
which can be visited upon any of us by hur- 
ricanes — the scourge of our part of the world. 
Since the turn of the century we have our- 
selves been ravaged more than two dozen 
times by major hurricanes. We know that 
for a developing country the tragedy of hur- 
ricane devastation can be even more cruel. 

The meeting today was called by our dis- 
tinguished Executive Chairman for the pur- 
pose of reviewing what Honduras' neighbors 

and appropriate international agencies have 
contributed and will contribute to assure sur- 
vival and recovery from this tragedy. 

Mr. Chairman, this is an occasion of sad- 
ness. Nonetheless I am proud to be able to 
report that the United States was among the 
many large and small countries that reacted 
quickly and generously to the desperate needs 
of the Honduran people in the first hours and 
days after Fifi struck. 

With full appreciation of the genuinely 
magnanimous response of other nations in 
this dire emergency, I would like to review 
here the scale and variety of my govern- 
ment's efforts to help the Honduran people 
find relief from the enduring agony and suf- 
fering caused by Fifi. 

Even before the hurricane rains ceased, 
my colleague U.S. Ambassador Phillip San- 
chez had transmitted to our government an 
official Honduran request for assistance on 
an emergency basis. Within hours my govern- 
ment dispatched two disaster survey teams 
to Honduras to help determine the extent of 
damage and the dimensions of assistance re- 

These were followed by the assignment of 
four helicopters, two transport aircraft, and 
four boats for use in rescue and emergency 
food and medical distribution missions. U.S. 
military personnel were flown into Honduras 
to help establish and maintain an emergency 
communications network. Our Air Force im- 
mediately commenced a series of mercy flights 
which over the next few weeks airlifted to 
Honduras almost 200 tons of relief supplies, 
including food, blankets, sheets, tents, porta- 
ble kitchens, insecticides, fuel, and clothing. 
The U.S. Government has also authorized or 
shipped to Honduras almost 2,000 metric 
tons of food supplies since the beginning of 
the emergency. Between September 19 and 
October 1, the total value of U.S. Govern- 
ment disaster relief assistance to Honduras 
exceeded $1.6 million. 


Department of State Bulletin 

As a clear indication of his great concern 
with this disaster President Ford sent two 
personal emissaries to Honduras on Septem- 
ber 28 to assess immediate relief require- 
ments and longer term recovery needs. The 
emissaries, Messrs. Herman Kleine and Rus- 
sell McClure, personally reported their find- 
ings to our President on October 7. 

They recommended that the United States 
continue to participate in the provision of 
critically needed assistance for life support 
in the posthurricane emergency phase. They 
also reported that assessment and planning 
were already underway for the postemer- 
gency task of rebuilding the economy of the 
shattered northern region. "The magnitude 
of the task," they reported, ". . . will be be- 
yond the crippled capacity of the Honduran 
economy. Help from outside will be needed." * 

They outlined a role for the U.S. Govern- 
ment, through the Agency for .International 
Development and through multilateral insti- 
tutions. They recommended that AID assist- 
ance be addressed primarily to the rural sec- 
tor and rural poor who were so grievously af- 
fected. They also noted that the requirements 
for the larger capital transfers might be ap- 
propriately addressed by the international 

As significant as official U.S. Government 
assistance has been in the immediate posthur- 
ricane phase, it has not constituted the only 
or even the major U.S. response to the emer- 
gency. I am referring, of course, to the char- 
acteristically generous and spontaneous do- 
nations of funds and commodities by private 
U.S. citizens and the provision of relief sup- 
plies, equipment, funds, personnel, and trans- 
port by the state and local governments and 
by private groups and U.S. voluntary agen- 

We do not know and will never know the 
full value of private citizens' contributions 
to the relief efforts, as these contributions 
have poured into Honduras through so many 
different channels. We have attempted — with- 
out complete success — to record contributions 
of the many private organizations and volun- 

1 For text of the report, see AID press release 74- 
70 dated Oct. 7, 1974. 

tary agencies in the United States. We do 
know that the value of this assistance now 
exceeds $5 million. 

I cannot mention all of the organizations 
involved, but with your permission, Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to pay particular trib- 
ute to the very significant contributions of 
the American Red Cross, CARE, Catholic 
Relief Services, the Medical Assistance Pro- 
gram, the Salvation Army, the State of Ala- 
bama, and the Sister Cities Program. 

Mr. Chairman, I am happy, too, to report 
that the continuing resolution voted by the 
U.S. Congress last Thursday, October 17, au- 
thorizes AID to conduct further relief and 
recovery operations in Honduras as well as 
in Bangladesh and Cyprus. 

The U.S. AID Mission in Honduras is now 
consulting with appropriate agencies of the 
Government of Honduras on specific recovery 
projects where U.S. bilateral assistance ef- 
forts can best be focused. Preliminary indi- 
cations are that our recovery assistance can 
most effectively help the Honduran Govern- 
ment in assisting farmers in replanting their 
crops, in providing minimal health facilities, 
getting available laborers working on small 
infrastructure repair projects, in cleaning up 
river channels and other watercourses, in re- 
pairing roads and bridges, and constructing 
emergency housing. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
close my remarks by pointing out that this 
disaster has again established the need for a 
more effective U.N. Disaster Relief Office. 
Representatives of my government have been 
in constant touch with UNDRO officials since 
the beginning of the emergency period, and 
we have nothing but praise and admiration 
for the contributions they have made within 
their sharply limited resources. 

However, the need for greater, more effi- 
cient coordination of international disaster 
relief assistance becomes both clearer and 
more pressing with each natural disaster 
that occurs. It is not enough that nations re- 
spond generously to the perceived needs of 
those afflicted by disaster. We need not only 
international generosity and compassion but 
also direction and coordination by a UNDRO 
staffed with people who know how to work 

November 18, 1974 


with a disaster-stricken government and who 
can tell all of us precisely what is needed 
where and for whom — not just food but what 
kind of food and how much, not just trans- 
port or personnel or communications but 
what kind and how much. 

Mr. Chairman, from my own personal ex- 
perience I can testify as to the enormous dif- 
ficulties that can be created out of unre- 
strained generosity of those who seek to help 
in a disaster. In my involvement in relief to 
the civilian victims of the Nigerian civil war, 
I found such matters as the well-intentioned 
donation of cans of soup. Regrettably, as we 
know, most American liquid soups are 90 per- 
cent water ; transporting that volume of wa- 
ter is inefficient when one considers dried 
soups would permit 90 percent more of this 
valuable nutrient. 

Moreover, in many instances one must con- 
sider the traditional diet of those victims of 
disaster. In such circumstances introduction 
of new, strange, and exotic foods can even 
create additional problems. These I mentioned 
only as illustrative of the range of what ap- 
peared to be minor difficulties but which, in 
a disaster context, can become major addi- 
tional problems. 

Mr. Chairman, people who were on the 
ground and active in the Honduran emer- 
gency tell me that a substantial amount of 
the commodity assistance provided so gen- 
erously by public and private donors around 
the world was not appropriate for this par- 
ticular emergency. In some cases, I am given 
to understand, receipt and distribution of 
critically needed emergency supplies might 
even have been slowed down because of the 
obstruction in the supply system caused by 
the presence of quantities of unnecessary and 
unhelpful items. 

An authoritative and efficient and experi- 
enced and well-staffed UNDRO with the abil- 
ity to communicate with and coordinate 
among member governments the precise 
kinds and amounts of assistance needed in 
any particular disaster would enable the in- 
ternational community to respond to disasters 
even more effectively than it did in this case. 

U.S. Reaffirms Opposition 
to South African Apartheid 

Following is a statement made in the Spe- 
cial Political Committee of the U.N. General 
Assembly by U.S. Representative Joseph M. 
Segel on October 17. 

USUN press release 138 dated October 17 

Everything that can be said against apar- 
theid has been said. Not one word has been 
said in defense of apartheid. And rightfully 
so. In a world in which there are all too many 
abuses of human rights, apartheid is among 
those which are absolutely indefensible. This 
pernicious form of systematized racial dis- 
crimination that continues to repress the non- 
white peoples of South Africa hangs heavy 
over the conscience of all mankind. 

But what can be done to redress the wrongs 
of apartheid? 

The worldwide attention that has been fo- 
cused on this problem, principally through 
the efforts of the nations that are members 
of the Organization of African Unity, is a 
great help. We commend you for your per- 
sistence and for your devotion to the cause of 
eliminating this unjust and demeaning way 
of life that is imposed upon more than three- 
quarters of the population of South Africa. 

The United States is among those coun- 
tries that have taken unilateral action to help 
move this problem toward solution. And I 
just want to take a few moments to state for 
the record what the United States and its 
citizens have actually done and are doing, 
because there has been some incorrect infor- 
mation disseminated in the press and in this 
building regarding our government's activi- 
ties and position on this important matter. 

For one thing, the United States has 
strongly urged the relatively small number 
of American firms which have facilities in 
South Africa to set an example by improving 
working conditions, salaries, and wages of 
their non-white workers. We recognize that 
there are some who do not agree with this 
policy, but we believe that it is a help, not a 
hindrance. Further, this policy has borne 


Department of State Bulletin 


fruit. A number of U.S. firms in South Af- 
rica are now following the extraordinary- 
practice (extraordinary for that country) of 
providing equal pay for equal work, regard- 
less of race. American firms also have set 
the pace in providing improved educational, 
legal, and medical benefits to non-white work- 
ers in South Africa. 

Secondly, the United States recognizes that 
it is wrong for any country to assist the South 
African Government in enforcing its apar- 
theid policies. For this reason, we imposed 
an arms embargo against South Africa even 
before the United Nations did so. We have 
observed this embargo very carefully and 
continue to do so. Moreover, we have not en- 
gaged in any military or naval cooperation 
with South Africa in the last decade. And 
despite allegations to the contrary, the United 
States has not coordinated defense strategy 
with South Africa nor do we have any inten- 
tion of now instituting such cooperation. 

The U.S. Government and the people of the 
United States would like apartheid to end — 
to end as soon as possible. The people of 
South Africa have suffered far too long under 
this oppressive system. 

We know from our own painful struggle 
with racial discrimination that change must 
be pursued vigorously and in many fields — 
education, labor, economic opportunities, 
housing, voting rights, et cetera. 

Mr. Chairman, we are all aware that the 
diversity of South Africa's racial and eco- 
nomic groups creates special problems which 
must be taken into consideration. But five 
years have passed since the Lusaka Mani- 
festo was issued, and although some changes 
have taken place, it is painfully obvious that 
the Government of South Africa has not 
risen to the challenge of this considered and 
responsible document. 

We believe that apartheid can still be ended 
peacefully. It is clearly in the best interests 
of all the peoples of the world, including cer- 
tainly those in South Africa, that the change 
come about this way. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States calls on 
the Government of South Africa to reexam- 

ine its policies and position in light of pres- 
ent-day realities. We say to the Government 
of South Africa : Your repressive racial sys- 
tem is indefensible ; it is both wrong and un- 
wise to try to continue to maintain it. 

We most strongly urge the South African 
Government to bring a timely end to its 
apartheid policies and racial injustice and to 
recognize that it is in their own best inter- 
ests to do this as rapidly as possible. 

U.S. Takes Further Steps To Enforce 
Sanctions Against Southern Rhodesia 

Following is a statement made in Commit- 
tee IV (Trusteeship) of the U.N. General 
Assembly by U.S. Representative Barbara M. 
White on October 25. 

USUN press release 148 dated October 25 

In his September 23 address before the 
U.N. General Assembly, Secretary of State 
Henry Kissinger declared that "The United 
States shares and pledges its support for the 
aspirations of all Africans to participate in 
the fruits of freedom and human dignity." I 
am glad to recall this statement, Mr. Chair- 
man, as we discuss Southern Rhodesia, one 
of the parts of Africa where these issues are 
at stake today. 

Over the past year, the continent of Af- 
rica has faced frustration, but it has also 
been the scene of historic progress. Guinea- 
Bissau has joined our ranks with universal 
acclaim for its newly won independence. Mo- 
zambique and Angola are moving quickly to- 
ward full independence and majority rule. 
These dramatic events are reshaping the face 
of Africa. They must also have telling ef- 
fects — not the least of them psychological — 
upon the minority regime in Southern Rho- 

Up to now, that illegal regime has seemed 
to show little comprehension of what is hap- 
pening within and beyond its borders. But 
we are hopeful that the quickening pace of 
events will induce it, too, to face the crying 

November 18, 1974 



need for change — to work out a peaceful set- 
tlement acceptable to the whole population 
of Southern Rhodesia as well as to the United 
Kingdom, which retains primary responsibil- 

We believe that the effective enforcement 
by all nations of the Security Council's man- 
datory sanctions is necessary to increase the 
pressures upon the minority regime in Salis- 
bury and thereby contribute toward an ac- 
ceptable solution. Thus my government has 
been and is an active member of the Security 
Council Sanctions Committee. 

During the past year, the United States 
has taken further steps to tighten its own en- 
forcement of sanctions. When made aware 
that U.S. airlines maintained interline agree- 
ments with Air Rhodesia and that U.S. travel 
firms and airlines issued tickets for Air Rho- 
desia, the Federal Aviation Administration 
acted to end these practices. When it became 
evident that the operator of the Air Rhodesia 
office in New York was engaging in unauthor- 
ized transactions, the Department of the 
Treasury closed the office. 

This committee is familiar with the Byrd 
amendment, which permits U.S. imports of 
certain strategic materials from Southern 
Rhodesia. I would like to report on the cur- 
rent situation. 

The amendment has been repealed by the 
Senate and is awaiting action by the House of 
Representatives. On August 12, the White 
House announced the support of President 
Ford, who had assumed the office only three 
days before, for repeal of the amendment. 
The executive branch of the U.S. Government 
is committed to returning the United States 
to full conformity with the U.N. sanctions. 
In no way am I lessening that commitment, 
Mr. Chairman, when I point out that U.S. 
imports under the Byrd amendment have 
been minimal in relation to total Rhodesian 
trade, amounting to less than 5 percent of all 
exports from that country. Any realistic dis- 
cussion must include this fact. 

During this debate we have heard allega- 
tions that the United States, through South 
Africa, is assisting the Smith regime in mili- 
tary matters. I can state categorically that 

these charges are totally without foundation. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States deeply 
believes in and supports the principle of ma- 
jority rule. It has been a fundamental part 
of our national tradition ; it remains so today. 

The United States wants to see a govern- 
ment in Southern Rhodesia which is the re- 
sult of a free choice by all the people of that 

We firmly support British efforts to end the 
Rhodesian rebellion. 

We will do our best to see that U.N. sanc- 
tions are respected. 

We earnestly hope that the march of events 
in Africa over the past six months will bear 
fruit in Southern Rhodesia as well and that 
she will move to become a true member of 
the African community, where her destiny 
must lie. 

U.S. Supports Extension of Mandate 
of U.N. Force in Egypt-Israel Sector 

Following is a statement made in the U.N. 
Security Council by U.S. Representative John 
Scali on October 23, together with the text 
of a resolution adopted by the Council that 


USUN press release 147 dated October 23 

Mr. President [M. Michel Njine, Repre- 
sentative of the United Republic of Cam- 
eroon] : It is with great pleasure that I con- 
gratulate you for the good will and the 
patience and the leadership that you have 
demonstrated in leading us to this happy re- 
sult — 13 affirmative votes and no dissenting 
voices in approving this important resolution. 
At a time when there were dissenting and 
differing views, you have successfully led us 
to a consensus I think of which we can all be 

One year ago, renewed war broke out be- 
tween Israel and her Arab neighbors, en- 
dangering the peace and the security of the 


Department of State Bulletin 

entire area. Today, a year later, the Security 
Council has made a second important con- 
tribution to preserving the present ceasefire 
and disengagement and, hopefully, to mov- 
ing us closer to a lasting peace. By extending 
the mandate of the U.N. Emergency Force 
(UNEF) for another six months, we seek to 
allow the necessary time and opportunity for 
negotiations, which are indispensable. 

This U.N. peace force has already made a 
historic impact for good in this highly stra- 
tegic part of the world. It has a record of 
which we can all be proud. Despite some prob- 
lems, UNEF has not only separated the com- 
batants but has helped create the climate of 
peace that is essential to successful negotia- 

With this renewed mandate and our vote 
of confidence, we are confident these soldiers 
for peace will overcome any difficulties as 
successfully as they solved the inevitable 
problems that occurred in the first 12 months 
of the existence of the Force. No force of this 
kind can expect perfect conditions for its 
task. The important point is that it has been 
an effective force for good, and we are confi- 
dent that it can continue its effective role. 

Last year's tragic conflict brought about a 
realization by the parties that the only realis- 
tic means of settling disputes is by a process 
of step-by-step negotiations based on Secu- 
rity Council Resolutions 242 and 338. For the 
first time in 26 years, this approach has pro- 
duced concrete progress toward such a settle- 
ment. Significant steps have been taken, par- 
ticularly in the Egyptian-Israeli and the Is- 
raeli-Syrian disengagement agreements. 

The United States has been privileged to 
participate actively in the negotiating proc- 
ess. Our government is convinced, and the 
successes of the past year have strengthened 
our conviction, that the only way to break 
through existing stalemates and move con- 
cretely toward peace is through a progressive 
series of agreements. Each step helps to 
change attitudes and create new situations in 
which further steps toward an equitable and 
permanent settlement can be agreed upon. 
The United States pledges to continue stren- 
uous efforts to achieve this goal. 

We thus note with approval that the Sec- 
retary General in his report, document 
S/11536, states that he considers the contin- 
ued operation of UNEF essential not only for 
the maintenance of the present quiet but also 
to assist, if required, in further efforts for the 
establishment of peace in the Middle East as 
called for by the Security Council. 

I am grateful for this opportunity to com- 
mend the UNEF for its outstanding work in 
maintaining the peace and preserving the 
climate in which the negotiating process can 
go forward. It is difficult to exaggerate the 
constructive role played by the soldiers for 
peace in these important first steps. 

Therefore, I am pleased to extend my gov- 
ernment's highest appreciation to the Secre- 
tary General and his headquarters staff and 
to the Commander in Chief of UNEF for 
their faithful and dedicated performance. I 
also wish to commend the civilian staff, the 
UNTSO [U.N. Truce Supervision Organiza- 
tion] observers, and most of all, the UNEF 
troops, who daily risk their lives far from 
their homes and families in the tasks of 

Our deepest sympathy is extended to the 
Governments of Canada, Peru, Finland, Pan- 
ama, Indonesia, and Austria for the tragic 
loss of lives of members of their contingents 
who in the past few months have given their 
lives in the service of peace. We ask the dele- 
gations of these countries to convey our con- 
dolences to the bereaved families of these 
brave men. May their sacrifice inspire our ef- 
forts to achieve a permanent settlement. 

We also wish to commend the troop-con- 
tributing countries for their commitment to 
international peace and security, for the be- 
liefs which have motivated them to contribute 
troops for this peacekeeping operation. 

The operation of UNEF has demonstrated 
effectively that the willingness of U.N. mem- 
bers to assume collective responsibility for 
international peacekeeping is important. All 
of us have agreed that it is vitally important 
that UNEF should operate with a maximum 
possible efficiency and at the lowest cost to 
U.N. members, all of whom share the finan- 
cial burdens of peacekeeping. 

November 18, 1974 


We also are aware that the Secretary Gen- 
eral, the troop contributors, all U.N. mem- 
bers, the Security Council, and the General 
Assembly are vitally interested in the effec- 
tive and efficient operation of this Force. Ef- 
ficient operation, in my government's view, 
must be coupled with maximum attention to 
economy. Indeed, the most efficient force is 
usually the leanest. My government strongly 
urges the Secretary General to continue his 
policy of keeping UNEF costs as low as pos- 
sible consistent with efficient operation and 
fair compensation to troop-contributing gov- 
ernments. My delegation will be working to 
achieve these ends in the responsible organ 
of the General Assembly, the Fifth Commit- 

Mr. President, the United States has voted 
in favor of the resolution just adopted which 
extends UNEF's mandate for another six 
months in the belief that further progress to- 
ward a Middle East settlement can be made 
during this period. We know that peacekeep- 
ing operations in the Middle East are essen- 
tial to maintaining stability during the nego- 
tiations among the parties. But we also firmly 
believe that peacekeeping must not become a 
substitute for a just and permanent settle- 


The Security Council, 

Recalling its resolutions 338 (1973), 340 (1973), 
341 (1973) and 346 (1974), 

Having examined the report of the Secretary- 
General on the activities of the United Nations 
Emergency Force (S/11536), 

Noting the opinion of the Secretary-General that 
"although quiet prevails in the Egypt-Israel sector, 
the over-all situation in the Middle East will remain 
fundamentally unstable as long as the underlying 
problems are unresolved", 

Noting also from the report of the Secretary- 
General (S/11536) that in the present circumstances 
the operation of the United Nations Emergency 
Force is still required, 

1. Decides that the mandate of the United Na- 
tions Emergency Force should be extended for an 
additional six-month period, that is, until 24 April 

J U.N. doc. S/RES/362 (1974); adopted by the 
Council on Oct. 23 by a vote of 13 to 0, with the Peo- 
ple's Republic of China and Iraq not participating in 
the vote. 

1975, in order to assist in further efforts for the es- 
tablishment of a just and lasting peace in the Mid- 
dle East; 

2. Commends the United Nations Emergency 
Force and those Governments supplying contingents 
to it for their contribution towards the achievement 
of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East; 

3. Expresses its confidence that the Force will be 
maintained with maximum efficiency and economy; 

4. Reaffirms that the United Nations Emergency 
Force must be able to function as an integral and ef- 
ficient military unit in the whole Egypt-Israel sector 
of operations without differentiation regarding the 
United Nations status of the various contingents as 
stated in paragraph 26 of the report of the Secre- 
tary-General (S/11536) and requests the Secretary- 
General to continue his efforts to that end. 

United Nations Documents: 
A Selected Bibliography 

Mimeographed or processed documents (such as 
those listed below) may be consulted at depository 
libraries in the United States. U.N. printed pub- 
lications may be purchased from the Sales Section 
of the United Nations, United Nations Plaza, N.Y. 

Economic and Social Council 

Statistical Commission: 

Statistical classifications. Draft standard interna- 
tional trade classification (SITC), rev. 2. Note 
by the Secretary General. E/CN.3/456. May 28, 
1974. 231 pp. 

Statistical classifications. Draft international stand- 
ard classification of all goods and services 
(ICGS). Report of the Secretary General. E/ 
CN.3/457. Part I; June 17, 1974; 223 pp. Part 
II; June 12, 1974; 214 pp. 

System of social and demographic statistics 
(SSDS). Potential uses and usefulness. Report 
of the Secretary General. E/CN.3/449. June 19, 
1974. 26 pp. 

World Population Conference 

World Population Conference background papers: 
Health and family planning. Prepared by the 

World Health Organization. E/CONF.60/CBP/ 

30. May 22, 1974. 41 pp. 
Report on the second inquiry among governments 

on population and development. Report of the 

Secretary General. E/CONF.60/CBP/32. May 

24, 1974. 105 pp. 
World and regional labor force prospects to the 

year 2000. Prepared by the International Labor 

Office, Geneva. E/CONF.60/CBP/31. May 29, 

1974. 37 pp. 


Department of State Bulletin 


U.S. Policy Toward Governments of Peru, 1 822-Present: 
Questions of Recognition and Diplomatic Relations 



This project is one of a series on U.S. policy toward various Latin American countries 
prepared at the request of former Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs Jack B. Ku- 
bisch. It is based upon published and unpublished official documents and upon published sec- 
ondary works. It represents a substantial revision and updating of this office's Research 
Project No. 350, "United States Recognition of Latin American Governments: A Tabular 
Summary of United States Recognition Action on Changes and Attempted Changes of Gov- 
ernment and of Chief Executives; Part 4, Peru, 1821-1952." 

The research and drafting for the revised paper were done by Dr. Ronald D. Landa un- 
der the direction of Dr. Mary P. Chapman, Chief of the Area Studies Branch. 

Edwin S. Costrell 

Chief, Historical Studies Division 

Historical Office 

Bureau of Public Affairs 

l, ■ 


Research Project No. 1066 A (Revised) 
September 1974 

November 18, 1974 


Note: The paragraphs on the left describe developments in Peru; the 
indented paragraphs describe U.S. responses to those developments. 


July 28, 1821. 
San Martin. 

U.S. Response 

U.S. Recognition of the Independence of Peru 
and Establishment of Diplomatic Relations, 1822-27 

The independence of Peru was proclaimed by Jose de 

Jan. 30, 1822. The House of Representatives asked President James 
Monroe to furnish it with the correspondence with Spanish-American 
governments, as well as with information regarding the "political condi- 
tion" of the new American nations. 

Mar. 8. President Monroe complied with the House request by pro- 
viding the desired correspondence and by pointing out in a special 
message to Congress that Peru and four other Spanish- American nations — 
Buenos Aires, Colombia, Chile, and Mexico — were in the "full enjoyment" 
of their independence and that the new governments had "a claim to 
recognition by other Powers, which ought not to be resisted." 

Mar. 28. The House of Representatives passed two resolutions, one 
indicating concurrence with the President that the American provinces 
of Spain which had declared and were enjoying their independence 
"ought to be recognized by the United States as independent nations," 
and the other asking the Committee on Ways and Means to report a bill 
appropriating a sum to enable the President "to give due effect to such 

May 4. Congress passed, and President Monroe signed into law, a bill 
providing an appropriation of $100,000 to defray the expenses of "such 
Missions to the independent nations on the American continent" as the 
President might deem proper. 

Jan. 13, 1823. President Monroe nominated John M. Prevost as the 
first U.S. Charge d' Affaires to Peru, but the nomination was soon with- 

May 2, 1826. The Senate confirmed the nomination of, and the Presi- 
dent commissioned, James Cooley as Charge d'Affaires to Peru. By this ac- 
tion the United States completed the formal recognition of the independ- 
ence of Peru. 

May 21, 1827. Cooley presented his credentials to the Peruvian 
Government in Lima, thus establishing diplomatic relations with Peru. 

U.S. Non-Recognition of the Bermudez Regime, 1834 

Jan. 4, 1834. With the assistance of former President Agustin 
Gamarra, Pedro Bermudez deposed President Luis Jose Orbegoso through 
a military coup and named himself "Supreme Provisional Chief." 


Department of State Bulletin 

Developments U.S. Response 

Jan. 11. The U.S. Charge, Samuel Larned, informed Washington that 
he was "compelled to consider the administration of the general govern- 
ment in Peru as in abeyance" until the Bermudez government took control 
of most of the other Departments (provinces) of the country. The 
"established practice of our government is to acknowledge governments 
^e facto whenever they shall have succeeded in establishing themselves 
in the country," said Larned. 

Jan. 28. After a popular uprising forced Bermudez and his supporters 
to abandon Lima, Orbegoso reclaimed the office of President. 

Feb. 13. Larned referred to the Bermudez-Gamarra insurrection as 
the "late scandalous military movement" and expressed his belief that 
its purpose was to establish a monarchical government in Peru. 

June 25. Larned observed that "the civil war may now be considered 
at an end: — all the Departments, and the whole of the Army, having 
recognized the legitimacy of the Government" of President Orbegoso. 

U.S. Non-Recognition of the Salaverry Regime, 1835 

Feb. 23, 1835. Felipe Santiago Salaverry, Inspector-General of the 
Army, led a revolt which again overturned the Orbegoso government. Two 
days later Salaverry named himself "Supreme Chief." 

June 23. Larned reported to the Department of State that he, as 
well as most of the Diplomatic Corps, was continuing to withhold recog- 
nition of the Salaverry regime as the de facto government, and that he 
had been addressing its representatives only as local authorities, "without 
once making use of a style of address, or phrase, that could be construed 
to imply a recognition, in them or their 'Supreme Chief, of a national 
government or administration . . . ." 

June 24. Orbegoso signed a treaty with Bolivian President Andres 
Santa Cruz, who agreed to enter Peru with his armies in order to help 
defeat Salaverry, who had allied himself with Gamarra. 

July 10. Santa Cruz issued a declaration in which he outlined his 
plans for a Peru-Bolivian Confederation. 

Aug. 13. Santa Cruz defeated Gamarra's forces in a battle near the 
lake of Yanacocha. Gamarra fled but was subsequently captured and, on 
October 19, 1835, was banished to Costa Rica. 

Nov. 13. As the fighting continued between the forces of Salaverry 
and the combined armies of Orbegoso and Santa Cruz, Larned reaffirmed 
his support of Orbegoso: ". . . as the Council of State has been dissolved, 
and the Congress has not been allowed to assemble at its legal period, — 
President Orbegozo [sic] is the only member or representative of the 
constitutional government now in existence: — and he has all the forms 
and presumption of right and popular will on his side; whilst his adver- 
sary has neither the one nor the other; having nothing to support his 
authority but the armed force [sic]." 


November 18, 1974 



Feb. 7, 1836. Salaverry's troops were defeated near Arequipa. 
verry was later taken prisoner and executed. 

U.S. Response 


Feb. 13. Larned reported that all of Peru was again under Orbegoso's 
"undisputed sway," which he called "a splendid and cheering example 
afforded of the triumph of law, order and principles, over ambition, usur- 
pation, and licentious despotism." 


U.S. Relations With the Peru-Bolivian Confederation, 1836-39 

Oct. 28, 1836. A decree was issued formally establishing the Peru- 
Bolivian Confederation, a union of North and South Peru and Bolivia. 
The Confederation had been taking shape for over a year. It was headed 
by Santa Cruz under the title of "Supreme Protector." 

Dec. 20. Having learned of the plans for a Peru-Bolivian Confedera- 
tion, Secretary of State John Forsyth told James B. Thornton, the new 
Charge to Peru, who had also been accredited to the Bolivian Government 
to negotiate a commercial treaty, that when he arrived in Lima, "the 
government that may have been constituted to manage the joint affairs 
of Peru and Bolivia" hopefully "would not permit a matter of mere form 
to be an obstacle to your reception or to the transaction of business 
with you." 

Dec. 28. Chile, supported by Gamarra and other Peruvian opponents 
of Orbegoso, declared war on the Confederation. 

Feb. 16, 1837. Thornton, who had arrived in Lima on Feb. 9 just after 
Santa Cruz had left the city, submitted his letter of credence by mail to 
the Santa Cruz government. As there was no personal presentation of 
credentials, this action presumably consummated U.S. recognition of the 
Peru-Bolivian Confederation, which formally recognized Thornton as 
Charge by a decree of Mar. 16. 

Aug. 6. Chilean forces and Peruvians under Gamarra landed at Ancon 
and later in the month captured Lima. 

June 9, 1838. J. C. Pickett was commissioned as U.S. Charge to the 
Peru-Bolivian Confederation, the first to be so accredited. 

Sept. 20. As two rival governments emerged to challenge the Confed- 
eration Government in North Peru, Acting Charge Edwin Bartlett, who 
was in correspondence with all three, said that he had carefully avoided 
"anything like a committal of the United States in a recognition of either 
of the New Governments." 

Jan. 20, 1839. The armies of the Confederation were defeated at the 
Battle of Yungay. 

Feb. 20. The Peru-Bolivian Confederation was officially dissolved and 
Santa Cruz abdicated. 


Department of State Bulletin 

Developments U.S. Response 

Mar. 7. According to a despatch from Bartlett, all the military authori- 
ties in Peru had acknowledged the authority of Gamarra as Provisional 
President when his forces captured Callao. 

June 13. Acting Secretary of State Aaron Vail rejected a proposal by 
recently appointed Charge Pickett to send him new credentials to replace 
those addressed to the Peru-Bolivian Confederation and to accredit him to 
the Gamarra government. 

U.S. Relations With the Gamarra Government, 1839-40 

Aug. 15, 1839. Having put down the last traces of resistance, Gamarra 
was confirmed by Congress as Provisional President. 

Aug. 23. The Gamarra government informally advised Pickett that 
his credentials, which were addressed to the Confederation, would not 
be accepted if presented. 

Oct. 19. The Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs officially told Pickett 
that "the restored Republic of Peru, after having driven the conqueror 
from her territory, does not find herself in a situation to receive agents 
accredited to him, because the relations of the usurping Government were 
very different from those of the Republic." 

Oct. 28. Pickett informed Washington that the Peruvian refusal to 
receive him was "rather unexpected," but that it was due to Gamarra's 
wish to avoid "any act that can be construed into an admission, that the 
Peru-Bolivian Confederation ever had a legal existence." 

Jan. 30, 1840. Pickett was formally received by the Gamarra govern- 
ment, an action which he later called "as unaccountable as it was unex- 
pected." He pointed out, however, that he was "required to produce new 
credentials, within a reasonable time, to be addressed to the Government 
of Peru." He added that he probably would hear nothing more of it, but 
should the new credentials be forwarded, "it may not be necessary to present 
them . . . ." Apparently the new credentials were never sent. 

U.S. Recognition of Elias' Assumption of Power, 1844 

June 17, 1844. After two years of civil war and several changes of 
government, the prefect of Lima, Domingo Elias, renounced allegiance to 
President Manuel Ignacio Vivanco and invested himself as the supreme 

June 20. At a conference of the Diplomatic Corps, Pickett signed a pro- 
tocol which said that, because of a multiplicity of de facto governments, 
none of which exercised complete sovereignty, it was necessary to recognize 

November 18, 1974 



U.S. Response 


Oct. 30. In setting down guidelines for John A. Bryan, who had just 
been commissioned Charge, Acting Secretary of State Richard K. Cralle 
said that "whoever may be in actual possession and exercise of the supreme 
power, whether by consent of the governed or by force, must be regarded 
as the de facto government of the country . . . ." Whether rightfully or not, 
Elias was "in the actual possession and exercise of the supreme power at 
Lima, the seat of Government : and it appears that not only the civil and 
military authorities of the capital and other places had quietly submitted 
to his government, but there has been no actual resistance on the part of 
the people at large. He must, therefore, under such circumstances, be 
regarded as representing the Supreme Directory of the Republic . . . ." 

Dec. 23. Pickett reported that his signing the protocol recognizing 
various factions was an error, since it had been construed by the Diplo- 
matic Corps as a U.S. commitment to join the other powers in protecting 
foreign commerce. 

U.S. Recognition of the Castilla Government, 1855 

May-June 1854. Political disintegration occurred as rival centers of 
power were established in four different cities. 

JUNE 10. One of the contenders for power, Ramon Castilla, issued a 
circular proclaiming himself President. 

June 10. The Diplomatic Corps in Lima, including U.S. Minister John 
R. Clay, ignored Castilla's circular. 

Jan. 5, 1855. Civil strife, which took on some characteristics of a 
popular upheaval against the army, was ended by Castilla's victory near 
Lima and his assumption of the position of Provisional President. 

Jan. 8. Congratulations were offered to Castilla by Minister Clay, who 
remarked that the United States "have adopted the principle of recognizing 
the Government de facto in countries with which we are in amity." 

U.S. De Facto Recognition of the Insurrectionary Vivanco Government, 1858 

Oct. 31, 1856. A revolt, whose leaders proclaimed General Manuel 
Ignacio Vivanco President and "Regenerator of the Republic," broke out 
at Arequipa. 

Dec. 29. Vivanco's forces seized control of some guano islands off the 
coast of Peru and began selling guano there to anyone who wished it. 

Jan. 24, 1858. A Peruvian Government steamer captured and confis- 
cated the cargo of two U.S. vessels, the Lizzie Thompson and the Georgiana, 
for having loaded with guano at islands not open to foreign commerce 
and having done so under licenses from Vivanco's forces. 


Department of State Bulletin 


U.S. Response 

FEB. 8. Clay protested to the Peruvian Foreign Minister that the 
seizures were unlawful, since Vivanco's supporters had taken over the 
functions of government for more than a year in some of the guano islands. 
As belligerents in a civil war, declared Clay, Vivanco's party must be 
considered a de facto government. 

Mar. 6. The civil war ended as President Castilla routed the insurgent 
forces at Arequipa and drove Vivanco into exile. 

Mar. 18. The Peruvian Minister in Washington informed Secretary of 
State Lewis Cass that his government considered that Clay had behaved 
in an unfair and hostile way toward Peru and that his position on the 
case involving the two U.S. ships was imperiling the "friendly harmony" 
existing between the two nations. 

May 28. Supported by the opinion of the U.S. Attorney General, Cass 
told the Peruvian Minister that the Vivanco forces had constituted a 
"de facto authority," whether or not recognized as a belligerent, and cer- 
tainly had the authority to dispose of any national property even if con- 
trary to the regulations of the national government. 

Nov. 26. After several unsuccessful efforts to convince the Peruvian 
Government of the correctness of the U.S. position, Secretary Cass, in 
instructions to Clay, reaffirmed his belief that Peru had no right to capture 
a U.S. vessel whose master obeyed the authorities he found in a Peruvian 
port, "though they had been set up by a recent revolution." Clay was 
directed to inform the Peruvian Government that the United States ex- 
pected reparation for the parties involved. 


ii-' ■ 



U.S. Severance of Relations, 1860-62, 
Over the Lizzie Thompson and Georgiana Affair 

Dec. 2, 1858. The Peruvian Minister in Washington informed Cass that 
Peru was ready to submit the Lizzie Thompson and Georgiana contro- 
versy to the decision of any European nation chosen by President James 

Mar. 2, 1859. Cass instructed Clay to reject the Peruvian suggestion 
of arbitration by a third power, since the majority of the owners of the 
vessels involved were opposed to the idea. 

Feb. 27, 1860. Having already made several unsuccessful attempts to 
obtain indemnification from the Peruvian Government, Clay suggested 
to Cass that a U.S. embargo of two Peruvian frigates bound for the United 
States would "bring this Government to reason." 

Mar. 12. After Cass had indicated on Feb. 23 that "further discussion 
with the Government of Peru upon the subject of the claims of our 
citizens is useless," Clay remarked that the time had come "when decisive 
action is required, to convince Peru and the other Republics of Spanish 
origin, that citizens of the United States are not to be dealt with at will, by 
military rulers . . . ." 


November 18, 1974 


Developments U.S. Response 

June 4. Delivering an ultimatum from the Department of State, Clay 
warned the Peruvian Foreign Minister that continued refusal to settle 
claims concerning the Lizzie Thompson and the Georgiana would be re- 
garded as "incompatible with the continuance of cordial relations." 

Oct. 19. Since the Peruvian Government remained intransigent on 
the issue, Clay suspended relations with Peru. 

Nov. 26. At his own request, the Peruvian Minister in Washington was 
given his passport. 

June 8, 1861. Christopher Robinson received a recess commission as 
Minister to Peru, thus indicating the U.S. intention to resume relations 
with Peru. President Lincoln had decided that the differences between 
the two countries were "not as such to recommend a state of war." 

Jan. 11, 1862. Relations were restored when Robinson was officially 
received in Lima. 

July 9, 1864. Following an abortive attempt to have the King of 
Belgium arbitrate the dispute, Secretary of State William Seward informed 
the Peruvian Minister in Washington that the matter would not be pursued 

U.S. Relations With the Diez Canseco and Prado Governments, 


August 1865. After war had broken out the previous year between 
Spain and Peru, Mariano Ignacio Prado led a rebellion protesting the 
peace terms demanded by Spain and accepted by the government of 
President Juan Antonio Pezet. The rebels gained control of all Peru 
except Lima. 

Oct. 10. Before his departure for Peru, Minister Alvin P. Hovey was 
instructed to recognize only Pezet's administration as the constitutional 
government, for "the United States are slow to recognize revolutionary 

Nov. 6. Pedro Diez Canseco became Provisional President upon the 
overthrow of Pezet's government. 

Nov. 8. The Diplomatic Corps, meeting at the U.S. Legation, resolved 
unanimously to recognize Diez Canseco. 

Nov. 9. Robinson, while awaiting Hovey's arrival, prematurely offered 
congratulations and "most friendly relations" to Diez Canseco. 

Nov. 17. Upon his arrival, Hovey requested an audience for the presen- 
tation of his credentials to the new regime. 


Department of State Bulletin 

Developments U.S. Response 

Nov. 26. Military leaders overthrew Diez Canseco and proclaimed 
Mariano Ignacio Prado as dictator. The decision was approved by a meet- 
ing of citizens in Lima. 

Nov. 28. Hovey reported that he would not seek to present his creden- 
tials nor for the present recognize the new regime. He acknowledged 
that the Diplomatic Corps had been hasty in recognizing Diez Canseco. 

Dec. 21. Relations were interrupted and the Prado government was still 
unrecognized when Robinson left Peru. 

Mar. 8, 1866. Secretary of State Seward rejected a subsequent request 
by Hovey to recognize the Prado government. "The policy of the United 
States," said Seward "is settled upon the principle that revolutions in 
republican states ought not to be accepted until the people have adopted 
them by organic law, with the solemnities which would seem sufficient to 
guarantee their stability and permanency." 

Apr. 13. Hovey reported that "should the United States wait until Peru 
is governed by organic law, in fact as well as in name, ... it will ... be 
a far distant day before our country is represented at all in Peru." 

Apr. 21. Because of evidence of stability in Prado's government and 
concern over continuing hostilities between Spain and Peru, Hovey was 
instructed to recognize the Prado government. 

May 22. Relations were resumed when Hovey presented his credentials 
to the Prado government. 

U.S. Non-Recognition of the Diez Canseco Regime and 
Subsequent Recognition of the Balta Government, 1868 

Jan. 22, 1868. Pedro Diez Canseco arrived in Lima after defeating 
President Prado's armies and claimed the executive office on the basis 
of his former election as Vice President. 

Feb. 14. Hovey indicated that Diez Canseco had been recognized as 
President de facto by all other diplomatic representatives, but that he had 
withheld U.S. recognition in accordance with the Department of State's 
instructions of Mar. 8, 1866. 

Apr. 1. Jose Balta was the apparent victor in a popular election for 
President, the results of which were to be sanctioned by Congress in July. 

Apr. 14. Hovey asked Washington that he be authorized, after Balta's 
confirmation as President, to establish relations with the Balta govern- 
ment immediately, because both he and the United States had been sharply 
criticized in Peru for withholding recognition from the Diez Canseco 

November 18, 1974 



U.S. Response 


May 7. In instructing Hovey to wait further for "legal evidence that 
the existing administration had been deliberately accepted by the people 
of Peru," Secretary of State Seward pointed out that the United States 
"must be entirely indifferent to political persons and parties in Peru, as 
in all South American republics, so long as all those persons and parties 
agree in maintaining a republican system as the only admissible form of 
government." Without this principle, he said, the constitutional vigor of 
the U.S. Government would be impaired, thus favoring "disorganization, 
disintegration, and anarchy throughout the American continent." 

Aug. 2. Balta was inaugurated President after Congress had certified 
his election. 

AUG. 5. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs delivered a note to the U.S. 
Legation announcing Balta's assumption of the Presidency and giving 
assurances that the rights of foreigners would be respected and that 
international agreements would be honored. 

Aug. 10. In a note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hovey acknowl- 
edged receipt of its note of Aug. 5, thus extending formal recognition to 
the Balta government. Hovey believed that he was acting in accordance 
with the Department of State's instruction of May 7. 

Aug. 17. Prior to receiving word of Hovey's recognition of the Balta 
government, Secretary of State Seward notified Hovey that, with Balta's 
election and confirmation by Congress, "no objection is now entertained 
to your holding full official intercourse with that government." 

U.S. Recognition of the Pardo Government, 1872 

Oct. 15, 1871. The Presidential election was accompanied by riots and 
the loss of lives, with each of five factions controlling its own voting tables 
and preventing a fair counting of the votes. 

Nov. 17. The electoral colleges met but were unable to decide who had 
won the election. That decision was left to the Congress, which was to 
convene the following July. 

JULY 15, 1872. Congress assembled and decided that Manuel Pardo had 
won the Presidential election. President Balta, who had supported another 
candidate in the electoral campaign, nevertheless accepted Congress' deci- 
sion and prepared to transfer power to Pardo within a few weeks. 

July 22. Angered by President Balta's inclination to yield the election 
to Pardo, Minister of War Tomas Gutierrez took control of the army, 
dispersed Congress, made himself "Supreme Chief," and four days later 
had Balta assassinated. 


Department of State Bulletin 

Developments U.S. Response 

July 25. U.S. Minister Francis Thomas replied to a note of July 23 
from the Minister of Foreign Affairs announcing Gutierrez's assumption 
of power by indicating that he would inform the U.S. Government of the 
developments in Peru and would await instructions. The Diplomatic Corps 
had agreed to recognize Gutierrez only as a de facto ruler simply to secure 
protection for the lives and property of the citizens of their respective 

JULY 28. Gutierrez was killed by a mob infuriated by his repressive 
measures. Balta's First Vice President, Mariano Herencia Zevallos, as- 
sumed the Presidency until Pardo could be inaugurated. 

Aug. 2. Pardo was inaugurated President. 

Sept. 26. Acting Secretary of State Charles Hale informed Thomas 
that "the indignation of the people of Peru at a cruel assassination and 
an attempted usurpation and overthrow of a representative government 
commands admiration, and their calm return to order gives promise of a 
stable condition of public affairs." 

Nov. 23. Thomas formally extended recognition to the Pardo govern- 
ment by presenting to Pardo a letter from President Ulysses S. Grant 
congratulating him on his inauguration. 

U.S. Recognition of the Pierola Government, 1880 

Dec. 18, 1879. Faced with serious military setbacks eight months after 
Peru had joined Bolivia in a war against Chile (the War of the Pacific), 
President Mariano Prado left the country, reportedly to seek help in Eu- 
rope. Although the First Vice President legally assumed the Presidency, 
the Minister of War, Manuel de La Cotera, became the real head of the gov- 

Dec. 24. After supporters of Gen. Nicolas Pierola had staged a mutiny 
in the army, La Cotera yielded the government to Pierola. 

Jan. 1, 1880. Minister Isaac P. Christiancy joined the other members 
of the Diplomatic Corps in paying respects to Pierola, with the understand- 
ing that recognition was not thereby extended. 

Jan. 31. Secretary of State William Evarts formally announced that 
the United States would recognize the Pierola regime, since it was under- 
stood that Peru was "driven to the acceptance of a new government on a 
provisional basis by the external pressure of their affairs and that the ac- 
cession of General Pierola to power was not accomplished by civil strife or 
factious insurrection." 

Feb. 5. In a note to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Christiancy ex- 
tended recognition on the basis that the Pierola government had the "cor- 
dial concurrence of the people." 

November 18, 1974 



U.S. Response 


U.S. Recognition of the Calderon Government, 1881 

Jan. 17, 1881. As the War of the Pacific continued, an invading Chilean 
army captured Lima. President Pierola left the city in an attempt to rally 
the interior of the country against the Chileans. 

Mar. 12. Encouraged by the Chilean occupation authorities, who refused 
to recognize the Pierola government, Francisco Garcia Calderon, who had 
been chosen Provisional President by an assembly of leading citizens in 
Lima and Callao, established a new government in the hamlet of Mag- 
dalena outside Lima. 

Mar. 16. Christiancy told Secretary of State James G. Blaine, that he 
could not recognize the Calderon government "until it shall appear to be a 
government of Peru, instead of Lima and Callao." Without instructions 
from Washington, he emphasized, he could not extend recognition, even if 
Calderon held half the country, until he was satisfied that the majority of 
the people approved of the Calderon government and until it showed evi- 
dence it could sustain itself as the Government of Peru. 

May 9. Blaine told Christiancy that if the Calderon government was 
supported by "the character and intelligence of Peru" and if it was "really 
endeavoring to restore constitutional government with a view both to order 
within and negotiation with Chile for peace," he was authorized to extend 
recognition. In addition, Blaine noted that he had already received in Wash- 
ington a confidential agent of the Calderon government. 

June 16. Christiancy responded to Blaine's May 9 instruction by point- 
ing out that the Calderon regime had the support of the wealthy sugar plan- 
tation owners and merchants and that it was attempting to restore order 
and reestablish constitutional government, but that it lacked a broad po- 
litical base. It was not a government de facto in any part of Peru except in 
the hamlet of Magdalena. 

June 26. Rather reluctantly, Christiancy extended recognition to the 
Calderon government in a note to the Foreign Ministry. He later explained 
to Washington that he had done so, because de facto political control had 
not been made a condition of recognition and because Blaine had already 
received Calderon's agent in Washington. Moreover, Christiancy had heard 
a rumor, which turned out to be false, that his successor would not come to 
Peru until a peace settlement between Chile and Peru was reached. There- 
fore, he admitted, he did not want it to appear that he was delaying his 
successor's coming by withholding recognition. 

JULY 6. Christiancy reported that he feared recognition may have been 
premature since some of Calderon's forces had begun to desert to Pierola's 

JULY 11. Congress confirmed Calderon as President until a new Presi- 
dent could be elected. 


Department of State Bulletin 

Developments U.S. Response 

Aug. 10. Stephen A. Hurlbut, who had replaced Christiancy as Minister 
to Peru earlier in the month, told the Department of State that he approved 
of Christiancy's recognition of the Calderon government. Even though it 
was not "a regular or constitutional government," he contended that it was 
"infinitely more so than that of Pierola, which was "a violent usurpation, 
autocratic and despotic." Hurlbut remarked, however, that Chile was not 
formally recognizing the Calderon government until it accepted Chile's 
terms for a peace settlement, something which Calderon had been reluctant 
to do. 

U.S. Recognition of the Montero Government, 1881 

Sept. 26-28, 1881. The Chilean forces of occupation seized the Peru- 
vian treasury, stopped payments, took over revenue collection, and decreed 
an end to President Calderon's authority. 

Sept. 29. In order to insure the constitutional succession, Congress 
quietly assembled in Lima and elected Adm. Lizardo Montero, then in com- 
mand of the north of Peru beyond Chilean lines, as Vice President. 

Oct. 4. Hurlbut gave Washington his view that "no act of Chile, whether 
from its civil or military authorities, can in any way operate upon the rela- 
tions which the United States have maintained or may choose to maintain 
with any government in Peru, nor can any military order prevent my treat- 
ing with Mr. Calderon as representing the sovereignty of Peru." 

OCT. 31. Secretary of State Blaine instructed Hurlbut to continue to rec- 
ognize the Calderon government. 

Nov. 4. Calderon's Foreign Minister sent a circular note to the Diplo- 
matic Corps in Lima announcing that Montero had declared his allegiance 
to Calderon. 

Nov. 6. The Chilean forces in Lima arrested Calderon and his Foreign 
Minister and had them sent to Chile. 

Nov. 9. Hurlbut informed the Department of State that Chile's obvious 
policy was to hold Peru under armed occupation until it could find or cre- 
ate a government with which to make peace on Chile's terms. 

Nov. 15. Montero formally succeeded Calderon as President and estab- 
lished his government at Arequipa. 

Nov. 30. Hurlbut answered a letter which had announced Montero's suc- 
cession to the Presidency with a formal communication acknowledging 
Montero as "the lawful head" of the Government of Peru. However, Hurl- 
but did not transfer the Legation to Arequipa but remained in Lima, where 
he died on Mar. 27, 1882. 

!i'-'. J 

November 18, 1974 


Developments U.S. Response 

Apr. 25, 1882. William H. Trescott, the special U.S. envoy to the three 
belligerent nations in the War of the Pacific empowered to help negotiate a 
peace settlement, visited President Montero in the interior of Peru and pre- 
sented his credentials to Montero. He later explained to Washington that 
he had undertaken the journey because he believed that the presentation of 
his credentials "would strengthen what is unquestionably the real govern- 
ment of Peru, recognized and obeyed at present by all parties of the Peru- 
vian people." 


Delayed U.S. Recognition of the Iglesias Government, January 1883-April 1884 

Jan. 2, 1883. Miguel Iglesias was chosen President of Peru by an as- 
sembly handpicked by Chile to serve as an instrument for making peace 
between the two countries. 

Oct. 3. After months of uncertainty over the degree of support Iglesias 
had among the people, the new U.S. Minister, Seth L. Phelps, told a Chilean 
representative that recognition would be extended to the Iglesias govern- 
ment when there was proof the country accepted him. In the meantime, 
Phelps withheld the presentation of his credentials. 

Oct. 20. Iglesias signed a peace treaty negotiated with Chile at Ancon, 
whereupon Chile recognized the Iglesias government. 

Nov. 15. Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen instructed Phelps 
to recognize the Iglesias government if the new Constitutional Assembly, 
which was to be elected the following January, represented Peru and fa- 
vored Iglesias. 

Mar. 1, 1884. The Constitutional Assembly elected in January named 
Iglesias Provisional President. 

Mar. 19. In response to an inquiry from the Department of State, Phelps 
said that he now rejected recognition because the Iglesias government was 
supported by Chilean troops, had organized the assembly by fraud, and had 
proposed to govern without constitutional restraint. 

Mar. 28. The Treaty of Ancon was ratified by the Peruvian Constitu- 
tional Assembly. 

Apr. 2. The Constitutional Assembly conferred dictatorial powers on 

Apr. 9. Informed that the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Iglesias 
government, in an interview with the Diplomatic Corps, had demanded of 
them immediate recognition and when they had refused had suspended rela- 
tions with the various legations, Secretary of State Frelinghuysen noted 
that the question of recognition was addressed to the "independent judg- 
ment and discretion" of the United States, uninfluenced by "anything in 
the nature of a menace." 


Department of State Bulletin 

Developments U.S. Response 

Apr. 18. Frelinghuysen authorized Phelps to present his credentials to 
President Iglesias if the Minister of Foreign Affairs would retract his state- 
ment to the Diplomatic Corps. 

Apr. 23. The Minister of Foreign Affairs told Phelps that his govern- 
ment desired to renew diplomatic relations "precisely as if nothing had oc- 
curred to interrupt them." 

Apr. 24. Phelps presented his credentials to President Iglesias, thus 
recognizing the Iglesias government. 

U.S. Recognition of the Caceres Government, 1886 

Dec. 2, 1885. Following several months of rebellion by forces of Andres 
Avelino Caceres against the government of President Iglesias, both men, 
through the good offices of the Diplomatic Corps, agreed that the govern- 
ment should be turned over to a Council of Ministers until popular elections 
for President could be held. 

Dec. 16. In instructing Minister Charles W. Buck to withhold recogni- 
tion, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard pointed out that the United States, 
"holding steadfastly to the principles of constitutional self-government, can 
not assume to forejudge the popular will of Peru by ratifying and confirm- 
ing an experimental and provisional order of things they may have indi- 
rectly helped to create." While he was authorized to maintain relations with 
whatever government happened to be in power, Buck was also told that it 
was "for the President to determine when and how formal recognition of 
the new government of Peru by the United States shall be effected." 

Mar. 14-21, 1886. National elections were held which resulted in the 
election of Caceres as President. 

Apr. 28. President Grover Cleveland received the Peruvian Minister, 
who presented his letter of recall. The United States interpreted this 
action as having the effect of recognizing the Provisional Government un- 
der the Council of Ministers, with the understanding that it was soon 
to be succeeded by a President and Congress already elected by the people. 
Buck was authorized to announce "this friendly action" in Peru on the 
same day. 

June 3. Caceres was inaugurated President. 

June 5. In acknowledging a note from the Foreign Minister the previous 
day, which had announced Caceres' assumption of the Presidency, Buck 
called attention to President Cleveland's remarks to the former Peruvian 
Minister in Washington on Apr. 28 as a sign of the "sympathetic disposi- 
tion" of the United States to Peru. By this acknowledgment the United 
States recognized the Caceres government. 

1 * 




November 18, 1974 



U.S. Response 

U.S. Recognition of the Borgono and Caceres Governments, 1894 

Apr. 1, 1894. After the death of President Remigo Morales Bermudez, 
former President Caceres led a faction which opposed the succession of 
First Vice President Pedro Alejandrino del Solar. In support of Caceres 
police and military officers took orders from the Second Vice President, 
Justiniano Borgono, who assumed the Presidency. 

Apr. 3. Minister James McKenzie withheld recognition and referred 
the matter to Washington. 

May 26. The Department of State transmitted to the Legation at 
Lima President Grover Cleveland's acknowledgment of Borgofio's as- 
sumption of office. 

June 18. McKenzie personally delivered President Cleveland's letter 
to Borgono, thus formally recognizing his government. 

Aug. 10. 
June 3. 

Caceres was inaugurated President after his election on 

Aug. 14. McKenzie extended recognition to the Caceres government 
by acknowledging receipt of the Foreign Ministry's note of Aug. 11 which 
announced the change in government and by reciprocating the new govern- 
ment's wish to continue friendly relations. 

U.S. Recognition of the Pierola Government, 1895 

Mar. 20, 1895. Following a revolt led by former President Pierola, 
President Caceres turned over executive power to a Provisional Council, 
which was to call for a Presidential election in the near future. 

Mar. 22. U.S. Minister McKenzie, who had joined the Diplomatic Corps 
in encouraging the transfer of power, extended recognition to the Pro- 
visional Council through a note addressed to the new government's 
Foreign Minister. 

Sept. 8. After his popular election in June and subsequent confirmation 
by the electoral college, Pierola was inaugurated President. 

Sept. 9. Charge Richard R. Neill extended recognition to the Pierola 
government by acknowledging receipt of a note from the Foreign Minister 
on the same day announcing Pierola's assumption of the Presidency and 
by expressing the wish of the United States to continue friendly relations 
with the new government. 

U.S. Recognition of the Benavides Government, 1914 

Feb. 4, 1914. A junta assumed power after rebel forces had stormed 
the palace of President Guillermo Billinghurst, taking him prisoner and 
forcing his resignation. Col. Oscar Benavides was named President of 
the junta. 


Department of State Bulletin 

Developments U.S. Response 

Feb. 8. Minister Benton McMillin reported that there was no evidence 
of organized opposition to the new government and that none seemed 
probable. He requested instructions concerning recognition and gave his 
own view that ultimate recognition was inevitable. 

Feb. 12. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan advised McMillin 
that recognition should be extended to the junta as a provisional govern- 
ment, pending the establishment of a permanent executive, on the basis 
of the "uncontested exercise of executive power" by the junta and its 
acceptance by the people. 

May 15. Oscar Benavides was elected Provisional President by Con- 
gress and immediately sworn in. 

May 27. Under instructions, McMillin called on the Foreign Minister 
and informed him that the United States recognized the Benavides 

U.S. De Facto and De Jure Recognition of the Leguia Government, 1919-20 

July 5, 1919. President-elect Augusto Leguia assumed the office of 
Provisional President after the forcible deposition of President Jose 
Pardo, who allegedly was planning to annul Leguia's election in May. 

July 7. Minister McMillin was instructed to "quietly avoid for the 
present any action" which would lead the new regime to believe it had 
been recognized. 

Aug. 9. In answer to an inquiry from the Department of State, Mc- 
Millin indicated that Leguia's support was strong enough, especially in the 
army, to enable him "to overcome any and all opposition that may arise 
against his rule for the present and near future." 

Aug. 26. In elections for a new Congress, Leguia's party won an over- 
whelming victory. 

Aug. 30. Under instructions, McMillin recognized the Leguia regime 
as the de facto government. 

Oct. 12. Leguia was inaugurated President. 

Feb. 6, 1920. Secretary of State Robert Lansing urged recognition of 
Leguia's government as de jure because of its absolute control, the new 
liberal constitution which had just been promulgated, its safeguarding of 
foreigners' rights to real and subsoil property, its efforts to place loans 
in the United States, and its recognition by other powers. President 
Woodrow Wilson deferred action on the recommendation. 

Apr. 24. De jure recognition was extended when the newly appointed 
Ambassador, William E. Gonzales, presented to President Leguia his 
credentials as well as a congratulatory letter from President Wilson on 
Leguia's assumption of the Presidency. 

November 18, 1974 



U.S. Response 


U.S. Recognition of the Sanchez Cerro Government, 1930 

Aug. 25, 1930. President Leguia resigned under threat of a military 

Aug. 27. A junta headed by Col. Luis M. Sanchez Cerro assumed power. 

Aug. 29. Authorizing the Embassy in Lima to convey his feelings to 
Sanchez Cerro, Secretary of State Henry Stimson expressed the hope that 
the new government would not revert to the days of "personal revenge" 
and implied that the new government's ability to protect the deposed mem- 
bers of the last government would be a factor in considering recognition. 

Sept. 13. Ambassador Fred Dearing recommended recognition of the 
junta because the people accepted it, it controlled all of Peru, it promised 
to live up to its obligations and restore constitutional government, and it 
was treating Leguia well. 

Sept. 18. Under instructions, Dearing informed the Foreign Minister 
that he was entering into full diplomatic relations with the junta, thus 
according it recognition. 

U.S. Continuance of Relations With the Samanez Ocampo Government, 1931 

Mar. 1, 1931. Faced with increasing discontent among the armed 
forces and the civilian population, President Sanchez Cerro and the 
entire junta handed their resignations to an assembly of representative 
citizens, which then gave executive power to a Triumvirate headed by 
Ricardo Leonicia Elias. 

Mar. 5. The Triumvirate headed by Elias was overthrown in a coup 
planned and executed by army officers led by Gustavo A. Jimenez. 

Mar. 6. Ambassador Dearing rejected a request by Sanchez Cerro that 
Dearing and other members of the Diplomatic Corps help create a demand 
for his return to the country in about three months' time so that he could 
run for the Presidency. 

Mar. 11. 
its head. 

A new junta was installed, with David Samanez Ocampo as 

Mar. 12. The Foreign Ministry sent a note to the U.S. Embassy, in- 
forming it of the change of government and giving assurances that the 
new government would strictly comply with Peru's international obli- 

Mar. 13. Dearing reported that in view of signs of disaffection in the 
south of Peru, he was deferring any recommendations concerning recog-. 
nition of the new government. 

Mar. 18. Dearing was authorized to attend a reception being given 
that evening by the Foreign Minister for the Diplomatic Corps, but was 
instructed to make it clear that he was not attending in his "representa- 
tive capacity." 


Department of State Bulletin 

Developments U.S. Response 

Apr. 10. The Department of State informed Dearing that it did not 
favor his suggestion that the United States support a joint mediation in 
Peru by several nations or by the League of Nations, a suggestion based 
on Dearing's belief that renewed civil strife may have been Communist- 

May 8. Noting that only Spain and Norway had so far extended recog- 
nition, Secretary Stimson requested further information from Dearing on 
the government's stability and popular support. 

May 15. Dearing reported that the government had the support of the 
military and the police and the acquiescence of the people in general. He 
recommended that the United States adopt the position of most of the 
other Latin American nations ; namely, to continue relations with the new 
government without taking any special recognition action. He argued that 
such action would tend "to stabilize conditions in Peru and by regularizing 
our intercourse will greatly facilitate our current business." 

May 20. Acting on instructions received the previous day, Dearing 
addressed a note to the Foreign Ministry acknowledging its note of Mar. 12 
and stating that the recent change in government made no difference in 
the diplomatic relations between the two countries. 


U.S. Recognition of the Sanchez Cerro Government, 1931 

July 2, 1931. Sanchez Cerro returned to Lima from abroad. Prior to 
his arrival, clashes occurred at Lima and Callao between his supporters 
and police, resulting in many injuries and several deaths. 

Oct. 11. In a bitterly contested election for President, Sanchez Cerro 
defeated Victor Raul Haya de la Torre, the candidate of the Alianza 
Popular Revolucionaria Americana (APRA). 

Dec. 8. Following certification of his election by the National Electoral 
Board despite claims by impartial observers that Haya de la Torre had 
won, Sanchez Cerro was inaugurated President. 

Dec. 11. At a reception for members of the Diplomatic Corps, Dearing, 
in accordance with the Department of State's instruction of Dec. 2, con- 
veyed to Sanchez Cerro the congratulations of President Herbert Hoover 
and his best wishes for the success of Sanchez Cerro's administration. 

I ii 



U.S. Continuance of Relations With the Benavides Government, 1933 

July 7, 1932. After President Sanchez Cerro had instituted a campaign 
to crush opposition parties and had Haya de la Torre arrested, an uprising 
broke out in Trujillo which resulted in widespread casualties. 

November 18, 1974 



Developments U.S. Response 

Apr. 7, 1933. Because of a variety of repressive acts by Sanchez Cerro, 
Ambassador Dearing told Washington that the basis for U.S. recognition 
of his government had been invalidated. Dearing proposed new courses 
of action toward Sanchez Cerro, including withdrawal of recognition, 
severance of diplomatic relations, and publicity of Sanchez Cerro's mis- 

Apr. 30. Sanchez Cerro was assassinated. The government was turned 
over to a Council of Ministers which asked Congress, under the provisions 
of the Constitution, to elect a new President. That same day Congress 
chose Oscar Benavides to serve the remainder of Sanchez Cerro's term. 

Apr. 30. The United States continued diplomatic relations with the 
Benavides government, although there is no apparent record of the deci- 
sion to do so or of the manner in which this was communicated to the 
Benavides government. 

July 11. While noting that the situation had "changed materially" 
since Apr. 7 when Dearing had made his recommendations regarding 
U.S. policy toward Sanchez Cerro, the Department of State informed 
Dearing that it had disapproved those recommendations. 

■ ill; 

lit ! 


U.S. Continuance of Relations With the Odria Government, 1948 

Oct. 30, 1948. In a bloodless coup d'etat Gen. Manuel Odria forced the 
resignation of President Jose Luis Bustamente y Rivero and established 
himself at the head of a military junta. 

Oct. 31. The Foreign Ministry informed the U.S. Embassy of the 
change in government and promised that the new government would 
respect Peru's international obligations. 

Oct. 31. Ambassador Harold H. Tittmann, Jr., told the Department of 
State that unless he was instructed otherwise, he would contact Odria and 
his Foreign Minister within the next two days, basing his action on 
Resolution 35 of the Bogota Conference held earlier in the year. This 
resolution said that continuity of diplomatic relations among the American 
states was desirable, that action with regard to diplomatic relations should 
not be used as a political weapon, and that establishment of diplomatic 
relations with a government did not imply any judgment on its domestic 

Nov. 12. The Department of State informed the U.S. representatives 
in the American Republics that in view of the "revolutionary and military 
character" of the Odria government, it was consulting with Organization 
of American States representatives in Washington before resuming rela- 
tions. It also observed that it was not acting contrary to the Bogota 
Conference Resolution 35, which had set no time limit concerning the 
resumption of relations. 


Department of State Bulletin 

Developments U.S. Response 

Nov. 21. Acting on instructions received the previous day, Tittmann 
delivered a note to the Foreign Ministry, acknowledging receipt of its note 
of Oct. 31 and stating the desire of the U.S. Government to continue 
friendly relations with the Odria government. 

Suspension of Relations With and Delayed U.S. Recognition 
of the Perez Godoy Government, 1962 

JUNE 10, 1962. In the Presidential election, although Haya de la Torre 
had more votes than either of his two opponents, none of the candidates 
received the necessary one-third plurality required for election. By law 
the President would be chosen by Congress when it convened on July 28. 

July 13. The Joint Armed Forces Command, fearful of a deal that 
would give former President Odria the Presidency and Haya de la Torre 
control of the Cabinet, demanded that President Manuel Prado annul the 
entire election as fraudulent and that an interim government be estab- 
lished to serve after the end of Prado's term until new elections could be 

July 18. An army combat team drove a tank through the gates of the 
Presidential Palace and arrested President Prado. Gen. Ricardo Perez 
Godoy proclaimed himself President. Constitutional guarantees were 
suspended, Congress was dissolved, and the election results were annulled, 
with the promise that free elections would be held in June 1963. 

July 18. The Foreign Ministry addressed a note to the U.S. Embassy 
announcing the change in government and giving assurances that the new 
government would honor its international obligations. 

July 18. A statement issued by the Department of State said, "We 
must deplore this military coup d'etat which has overthrown the constitu- 
tional Government of Peru. . . . our diplomatic relations with Peru have 
been suspended." The Department of State announced the following day 
the suspension of the various assistance programs to Peru, "with certain 
relatively minor exceptions where important humanitarian factors are 

July 23. When asked at a press conference about the apparent incon- 
sistency in withholding aid from a military dictatorship in Peru while 
at the same time asking Congress for discretionary power to continue 
most-favored-nation status for Communist dictatorships in Poland and 
Yugoslavia, President John F. Kennedy replied: "We are anxious to see 
a return to constitutional forms in Peru, and therefore until we know 
what is going to happen in Peru, we are prudent in making our judgments 
as to what we shall do. We think it's in our national interest, and I think 
the aid we're giving in other areas is in our national interest, because we 
feel that this hemisphere can only be secure and free with democratic 

November 18, 1974 




Developments U.S. Response 

Aug. 1. At a press conference President Kennedy indicated that the 
United States had been encouraged by signs that Peru was returning to 
"constitutional free government, which is the object of the Alliance for 

Aug. 17. The Department of State announced that the United States 
was resuming relations with the Peruvian government and extending 
recognition to the Perez Godoy junta by having Charge Douglas Hender- 
son acknowledge receipt of the Foreign Ministry's note of July 18. It is 
also stated that economic assistance to Peru was being resumed. Military 
assistance, however, was withheld. 

U.S. Suspension and Resumption of Relations With the Velasco Government, 1968 

Oct. 3, 1968. A group of military officers, supported by a column of 
tanks, forcibly removed President Fernando Belaunde Terry from office 
and put him on a plane to Buenos Aires. A junta of military service 
commanders issued a Revolutionary Manifesto and Statutes, dissolved the 
Congress, and proclaimed as President Juan Velasco Alvarado, Command- 
ing General of the Army and Acting President of the Armed Forces 

Oct. 4. It was announced at a Department of State press briefing that 
"the overthrow of the Peruvian Government by the military forces has 
the effect of suspending normal diplomatic relations between Peru and 
the United States." Aid programs to Peru were also suspended. 

Oct. 9. The new government officially seized the major holdings of 
the International Petroleum Company. 

Oct. 25. At a Department of State press briefing, a spokesman said 
that "the American Embassy in Lima advised the Peruvian Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs at noon today that the United States Government has 
resumed diplomatic relations with the Government of Peru." The deci- 
sion was made, he said, after consultations with other Organization of 
American States members in accordance with Resolution 26 of the 1965 
Rio de Janeiro Conference and after the new government had stated its 
intention to honor Peru's international obligations and to return to 
constitutional government. He also said that the seizure of the Interna- 
tional Petroleum Company's holdings had not been a factor in the decision 
to resume relations. Aid programs for Peru remained "under review." 
(Most aid programs were soon resumed.) 


Department of State Bulletin 

Current Actions 


Atomic Energy 

Memorandum of understanding in the field of nuclear 

science and technical information, with minutes of 

signature. Done at Brussels September 19, 1974. 

Entered into force September 19, 1974. 

Signatures: Belgium, European Atomic Energy 

Community, Federal Republic of Germany, 11 

Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and 

the United States, September 19, 1974. 


Protocol for the continuation in force of the interna- 
tional coffee agreement 1968, as amended and ex- 
tended, with annex. Approved by the International 
Coffee Council at London September 26, 1974. Open 
for signature November 1, 1974, through March 
31, 1975. Enters into force definitively October 1, 
1975, if governments which have signed not sub- 
ject to approval, ratification, or acceptance or 
which have deposited instruments of approval, rat- 
ification, or acceptance represent at least 20 ex- 
porting members holding a majority of the votes 
of exporting members and at least 10 importing 
members holding a majority of the votes of im- 
porting members or, provisionally, October 1, 1975, 
if above number of governments deposit notifica- 
tions undertaking to apply protocol provisionally 
and to seek approval, ratification, or acceptance. 

Cultural Property 

Convention on the means of prohibiting and prevent- 
ing the illicit import, export and transfer of own- 
ership of cultural property. Adopted at Paris No- 
vember 14, 1970. Entered into force April 24, 
1972. 3 
Ratification deposited: Jordan, March 15, 1974. 


Convention on the settlement of investment disputes 
between states and nationals of other states. Done 
at Washington March 18, 1965. Entered into force 
October 14, 1966. TIAS 6090. 
Signature: The Gambia, October 1, 1974. 

International Court of Justice 

Statute of the International Court of Justice (59 
Stat. 1055). 

Declaration recognizing compulsory jurisdiction 
deposited: India, September 18, 1974.* 

Maritime Matters 

Amendment of article VII of the convention on fa- 
cilitation of international maritime traffic, 1965 

(TIAS 6251). Adopted at London November 19, 

Acceptance deposited: Denmark, March 28, 1974; 
United Kingdom, October 7, 1974. 

Oil Pollution 

Amendments to the international convention for the 
prevention of pollution of the sea by oil, 1954, as 
amended (TIAS 4900, 6109). Adopted at London 
October 15, 1971.= 

Acceptance deposited: United Kingdom, October 


Strasbourg agreement concerning the international 
patent classification. Done at Strasbourg March 
24, 1971."' 
Ratification deposited: Brazil, October 3, 1974. 

Postal Matters 

Constitution of the Universal Postal Union with final 
protocol signed at Vienna July 10, 1964 (TIAS 
5881), as amended by additional protocol, general 
regulations with final protocol and annex, and the 
universal postal convention with final protocol and 
detailed regulations. Signed at Tokyo November 
14, 1969. Entered into force July 1, 1971, except 
for article V of the additional protocol, which en- 
tered into force January 1, 1971. TIAS 7150. 
Accession deposited: The Gambia, July 2, 1974. 

Additional protocol to the constitution of the Uni- 
versal Postal Union with final protocol signed at 
Vienna July 10, 1964 (TIAS 5881), general regula- 
tions with final protocol and annex, and the uni- 
versal postal convention with final protocol and de- 
tailed regulations. Signed at Tokyo November 14, 
1969. Entered into force July 1, 1971, except for 
article V of the additional protocol, which entered 
into force January 1, 1971. TIAS 7150. 
Ratifications deposited: Malagasy Republic, Janu- 
ary 9, 1973; Malaysia, May 17, 1974. 

Money orders and postal travellers' cheques agree- 
ment, with detailed regulations and forms. Signed 
at Tokyo November 14, 1969. Entered into force 
July 1, 1971; for the United States December 31, 
1971. TIAS 7236. 

Approval deposited: Malagasy Republic, January 
9, 1973. 

Property — Industrial 

Convention of Paris for the protection of industrial 
property of March 20, 1883, as revised. Done at 
Stockholm July 14, 1967. Articles 1 through 12 en- 
tered into force May 19, 1970; for the United 
States August 25, 1973. Articles 13 through 30 en- 
tered into force April 26, 1970; for the United 
States September 5, 1970. TIAS 6923, 7727. 
Notification from World Intellectual Property Or- 
ganization that ratification deposited: Nether- 
lands (applicable to Surinam and Netherlands 
Antilles) , October 10, 1974. 

1 With reservation. 

- Applicable to Land Berlin. 

1 Not in force for the United States. 

' With conditions. 

r ' Not in force. 

November 18, 1974 




1 1 




Property — Intellectual 

Convention establishing the World Intellectual Prop- 
erty Organization. Done at Stockholm July 14, 
1967. Entered into force April 26, 1970; for the 
United States August 25, 1970. TIAS 6932. 
Ratification deposited: Netherlands (applicable to 
Surinam and Netherlands Antilles), October 9, 
Notifications of intention to apply transitional pro- 
visions: Cyprus, Indonesia, September 20, 1974. 


Convention on international liability for damage 
caused by space objects. Done at Washington, Lon- 
don, and Moscow March 29, 1972. Entered into 
force September 1, 1972; for the United States 
October 9, 1973. TIAS 7762. 

Ratification deposited: New Zealand, October 30, 

Terrorism — Protection of Diplomats 

Convention on the prevention and punishment of 
crimes against internationally protected persons, 
including diplomatic agents. Done at New York 
December 14, 1973."' 
Signature: Ecuador, August 27, 1974.' 


Vienna convention on the law of treaties, with an- 
nex. Done at Vienna May 23, 1969."' 
Ratification deposited: Mexico, September 25, 



Agreement relating to the continuation of the de- 
fense agreement of May 5, 1951 (TIAS 2266), 
with memorandum of understanding and agreed 
minute. Effected by exchange of notes at Reykja- 
vik October 22, 1974. Entered into force October 
22, 1974. 


Arrangement concerning trade in cotton, wool, and 
manmade fiber textiles, with related letters. Ef- 
fected by exchange of notes at Washington Sep- 
tember 27, 1974. Entered into force September 27, 
1974, effective October 1, 1974. 


Agreement amending the agreement of November 8 
and December 14, 1972 (TIAS 7534), relating to 
the transfer of scrap to Viet-Nam as supplemen- 
tary military assistance. Effected by exchange of 
notes at Saigon September 3 and October 14, 
1974. Entered into force October 14, 1974. 

1 With reservation. 

5 Not in force. 

6 With declaration. 


GPO Sales Publications 

Publications may be ordered by catalog or stock 
number from the Superintendent of Documents, 
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 
20402. A 25-percent discount is made on orders for 
100 or more copies of any one publication mailed to 
the same address. Remittances, payable to the Su- 
perintendent of Documents, must accompany orders. 
Prices shown below, which include domestic postage, 
are subject to change. 

Background Notes: Short, factual summaries which 
describe the people, history, government, economy, 
and foreign relations of each country. Each contains 
a map, a list of principal government officials and 
U.S. diplomatic and consular officers, and a reading 
list. (A complete set of all Background Notes cur- 
rently in stock — at least 140 — $16.35; 1-year sub- 
scription service for approximately 77 updated or 
new Notes— $14.50; plastic binder— $1.50.) Single 
copies of those listed below are available at 25? 

Bermuda Cat. No. S1.123:B45 

Pub. 7907 4 pp. 

Haiti Cat. No. S1.123:H12 

Pub. 8287 4 pp. 

Iraq Cat. No. S1.123:IRl/2 

Pub. 7975 4 pp. 

Jamaica Cat. No. S1.123:J22 

Pub. 8080 4 pp. 

Libya Cat. No. S1.123:L61 

Pub. 7815 5 pp. 

International Coffee Agreement. Amending and ex- 
tending the agreement of March 18, 1968. TIAS 
7809. 237 pp. $1.90. (Cat. No. S9.10:7809). 

Nonscheduled Air Services. Agreement, with proto- 
col, with Yugoslavia. TIAS 7819. 56 pp. 65 ?. (Cat. 
No. S9.10:7819). 

Trade in Cotton Textiles. Agreement with Egypt. 
TIAS 7828. 3 pp. 25?. (Cat. No. S9.10:7828). 

Space Research Project. Agreement with Brazil and 
the Federal Republic of Germany. TIAS 7830. 10 
pp. 25?. (Cat. No. S9.10:7830). 

Finance — Public Law 480 and Other Funds. Agree- 
ment with India. TIAS 7831. 39 pp. 45?. (Cat. No. 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Guinea. 
TIAS 7835. 11 pp. 25?. (Cat. No. S9.10:7835). 

Extradition. Treaty with Paraguay. TIAS 7838. 26 
pp. 35?. (Cat. No. S9.10:7838). 


Department of State Bulletin 

INDEX November 18, 197A Vol. LXXI, No. 18U7 

Claims. Notice of Time for Filing Claims 

Against Egypt by U.S. Nationals .... 669 

Communications. Telecommunication Conven- 
tion Transmitted to the Senate (message 
from President Ford) 668 


Congressional Documents Relating to Foreign 

Policy 669 

Senate Confirms U.S. Delegation to UNESCO 

General Conference 667 

Telecommunication Convention Transmitted to 

the Senate (message from President Ford) 668 


Notice of Time for Filing Claims Against 

Egypt by U.S. Nationals 669 

U.S. Supports Extension of Mandate of U.N. 
Force in Egypt-Israel Sector (Scali, text of 
resolution) 674 

Foreign Aid. U.S. Reviews Disaster Relief Ef- 
forts for Hurricane Victims in Honduras 
(Ferguson) 670 

Historical Studies. U.S. Policy Toward Gov- 
ernments of Peru, 1822-Present: Questions 
of Recognition and Diplomatic Relations 
(tabular summary) 677 

Honduras. U.S. Reviews Disaster Relief Ef- 
forts for Hurricane Victims in Honduras 
(Ferguson) 670 

Israel. U.S. Supports Extension of Mandate 
of U.N. Force in Egypt-Israel Sector (Scali, 
text of resolution) 674 

Mexico. President Ford Meets With President 

Echeverria of Mexico (Ford, Echeverria) . 661 

Middle East. U.S. Supports Extension of Man- 
date of U.N. Force in Egypt-Israel Sector 
(Scali, text of resolution) 674 

Mozambique. U.S. Congratulates Mozam- 
bique's Joint Transitional Government (text 
of letter) 668 

Peru. U.S. Policy Toward Governments of 
Peru, 1822-Present: Questions of Recogni- 
tion and Diplomatic Relations (tabular sum- 
mary) 677 

Portugal. U.S. Congratulates Mozambique's 
Joint Transitional Government (text of let- 
ter) 668 

Presidential Documents 

President Ford Meets With President Eche- 
verria of Mexico 661 

Telecommunication Convention Transmitted to 
the Senate 668 

Publications. GPO Sales Publications .... 699 

South Africa. U.S. Reaffirms Opposition to 

South African Apartheid (Segel) .... 672 

Southern Rhodesia. U.S. Takes Further Steps 
To Enforce Sanctions Against Southern 
Rhodesia (White) 673 

Treaty Information 

Current Actions 699 

Telecommunication Convention Transmitted to 

the Senate (message from President Ford) 668 

United Nations 

Senate Confirms U.S. Delegation to UNESCO 

General Conference 667 

United Nations Documents 676 

U.S. Reaffirms Opposition to South African 
Apartheid (Segel) 672 

U.S. Reviews Disaster Relief Efforts for Hur- 
ricane Victims in Honduras (Ferguson) . . 670 

U.S. Supports Extension of Mandate of U.N. 
Force in Egypt-Israel Sector (Scali, text of 
resolution) 674 

U.S. Takes Further Steps To Enforce Sanc- 
tions Against Southern Rhodesia (White) . 673 

Name Index 

Echeverria, Luis 661 

Ferguson, Clarence Clyde, Jr 670 

Ford, President 661,668 

Scali, John 674 

Segel, Joseph M 672 

White, Barbara M 673 







*447 10/29 

|448 10/29 

Check List of Department of State 

Press Releases: October 28-November 3 

Press releases may be obtained from the Of- 
fice of Press Relations, Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 

Release issued prior to October 28 which ap- 
pears in this issue of the Bulletin is 429 of 
October 18. 


Kissinger: Indian Council on 
World Affairs, New Delhi. 

Shipping Coordinating Commit- 
tee Subcommittee on Maritime 
Law, Nov. 20. 

Chinese art and archaeological 
exhibition to tour U.S., Dec. 
13-June 8. 

Kissinger, Chavan: toasts, New 
Delhi, Oct. 28. 

U.S. -India joint communique. 

U.S. delegation to the World 
Food Conference. 

Kissinger: news conference, New 

Advisory Committee on Interna- 
tional Book and Library Pro- 
grams, Nov. 22. 

Emmet J. Kay to receive Trib- 
ute of Appreciation (biograph- 
ic data). 

Kissinger: remarks on All-India 
Radio, Oct. 30. 

Kissinger: remarks to press, 
Dacca, Oct. 30. 

Kissinger, Hossain: exchange of 
toasts, Dacca, Oct. 30. 

U.S.-Bangladesh joint communi- 

Ingersoll: remarks at presenta- 
tion of award to Emmet J. 

Kissinger, Bhutto: exchange of 
toasts, Rawalpindi, Oct. 31. 

U.S. -Pakistan joint communique. 

Kissinger: departure, Islamabad. 

U.S.-Afghanistan joint state- 

U.S.-Iran joint communique. 

Kissinger, Ansary: news confer- 
ence, Tehran. 







*453 10/31 











t459 11/1 






* Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the Bulletin. 


Superintendent of Documents 
u.s. government printing office 



Special Fourth-Clan Rate 





i (:2 

Subscription Renewals: To insure uninterrupted 
service, please renew your subscription promptly 
when you receive the expiration notice from the 
Superintendent of Documents. Due to the time re- 
quired to process renewals, notices are sent out 3 
months in advance of the expiration date. Any prob- 
lems involving your subscription will receive im- 
mediate attention if you write to: Director, Office 
of Media Services (PA/MS), Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520. 




Volume LXXI 

No. 1848 

November 25, 1974 


Address by Secretary Kissinger 
Before the Indian Council on World Affairs 74.0 Tt ,p LIBRARY OF THE 

JAN 1 & 1975 



For index see inside back cover 


Vol. LXXI, No. 1848 
November 25, 1974 


For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


52 issues plus semiannual indexes, 

domestic $29.80, foreign $37.25 

Single copy 60 cents 

Use of funds for printing this publication 

approved by the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (January 29, 1971). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 

copyrighted and items contained herein may be 

reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 

appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 

the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, provides the public and 
interested agencies of the government 
with information on developments in 
the field of U.S. foreign relations and 
on the work of the Department and 
the Foreign Service. 
The BULLETIN includes selected 
press releases on foreign policy, issued 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements, addresses, 
and news conferences of the President 
and the Secretary of State and other 
officers of the Department, as well as 
special articles on various phases of 
international affairs and the functions 
of the Department. Information Is 
included concerning treaties and inter- 
national agreements to which the 
United States is or may become a 
party and on treaties of general inter- 
national interest. 

Publications of the Department of 
State, United Nations documents, and 
legislative material in the field of 
international relations are also listed. 

Secretary Kissinger Visits the U.S.S.R., South Asia, Iran, 
Romania, Yugoslavia, and Italy 

Secretary Kissinger visited the U.S.S.R., 
India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, 
Iran, Romania, Yugoslavia, Italy, Egypt, 
Saiidi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Israel, and Tu- 
nisia October 23-November 9. Following are 
remarks by Secretary Kissinger and foreign 
leaders and texts of joint statements and 
communiques issued through his visit, to 
Italy. 1 


Remarks by Secretary Kissinger 
Upon Arrival, Moscow, October 23 

Press release 435 dated October 23 

I want to express my pleasure at being 
in Moscow again. We expect to have very 
full, very friendly, and very constructive 
talks as a continuation of the dialogue which 
has gone on for many years now and which 
we believe is of benefit to the people of our 
two countries and to all of the peoples of 
the world in the interests of peace. 

Thank you. 

Q. [Inaudible]. 

Secretary Kissinger: Ever since 1972 there 
have been regular consultations between the 
United States and the Soviet Union across 
the whole range of international issues, so 
we will review bilateral relations, interna- 
tional relations, in a friendly spirit and with 

1 Secretary Kissinger's address before the World 
Food Conference Nov. 5 and remarks made Nov. 5-9 
and at Moscow Oct. 26 will appear in later issues of 
the Bulletin. 

the attitude of making a constructive contri- 
bution toward peace. 

Q. How woidd you evaluate the present 
state of Soviet- American relations? 

Secretary Kissinger: I think the present 
status of Soviet-American relations is good, 
and we are determined to improve it still 

Q. What kind of progress can be expected 
in the nearest future ? 

Secretary Kissinger: Well, I'm here with 
the attitude of making progress in these 
talks. I'm also delighted that my wife is 
with me for the first time. 

Q. Thank you very much. 

Luncheon Hosted by Foreign Minister Gromyko, 
Moscow, October 24 

Press release 436 dated October 24 

Toast by Foreign Minister Gromyko 

Mr. Secretary of State, Mrs. Kissinger, 
ladies and gentlemen : We express our satis- 
faction with the fact that the Secretary of 
State is once again on a visit to the Soviet 
Union and we have another opportunity to 
exchange views between the Secretary of 
State and our leaders on very important 
questions of international politics. You had 
your first conversation with Leonid Brezhnev, 
the General Secretary of the Communist 
Party. He was pleased, together with my 
other colleagues, with this talk, and this is 
what I would like to say. This conversation 
was a very useful one with a very important 





November 25, 1974 






content. While there are still very impor- 
tant questions remaining to be discussed, I 
can say quite confidently that both sides are 
encouraged in these frank discussions and 
that this is in accord with the practice that 
has come into being between members of the 
Soviet Union and the United States. 

Already on the basis of this discussion, I 
am sure that you have been able to draw 
the conclusion that the Soviet leadership on 
the whole and Leonid Brezhnev, our Secre- 
tary, is in favor of continuing the line that 
was initiated between our two countries. 
Achievements of great importance have been 
registered in Soviet-American relations. 
They are well known, and I will not go over 
them again. But now the main task is to 
continue the line jointly taken in these rela- 
tions and develop and encourage these rela- 
tions. The Soviet Government is still firmly 
in favor of continuing that line. 

Leonid Brezhnev during that conversation 
expressed his satisfaction with the state- 
ments made by President Ford, who is in 
favor of developing Soviet-American rela- 
tions and who is in favor of continuing that 
line. This is fully in accord with our own 
line of policy. 

It goes without saying that this has indeed 
been emphasized on both sides; that further 
success — and we would like to say further 
and big successes — require efforts, and vigor- 
ous efforts, on both sides. We are prepared 
to make those efforts. I believe that if both 
sides display the determination to continue 
and advance along this path, both the United 
States and the Soviet Union and both the 
American people and the Soviet people can 
look confidently and optimistically into the 
future. As I said, there are still many more 
important questions to be discussed, ques- 
tions of great importance, and it is therefore 
too early to speak or even hint at the 
possible outcome of these meetings. But I 
would like to express the hope that our meet- 
ings with you on these matters which are 
of immense interest for the entire world will 
lead to positive results. 

We regret that this visit is all too brief, 
and once again you will not be able to see 

very much outside of Moscow. As I see it, 
you still have certain doubts as to the exist- 
ence of Leningrad. But we hope that after 
Mrs. Kissinger's trip to Leningrad, she will 
succeed in confirming to you that Leningrad 
does exist. 

I would like to raise our glasses in a toast 
to the positive outcome of these meetings, to 
the strength of cooperation of the Soviet 
Union and the United States, of the joint 
interest in detente and the strengthening of 
relations between the Soviet Union and the 
United States. 

Toast by Secretary Kissinger 

Mr. Foreign Minister, distinguished guests 
and friends, and Mrs. Gromyko : I have been 
asked as usual a very direct question by the 
Foreign Minister, which is to affirm the 
existence of Leningrad. All I can say is that 
we are in the preliminary stage of our nego- 
tiations. It is too early to draw a final 
conclusion, but we have talked in a construc- 
tive and positive manner and I think with 
good will on both sides we may achieve a 
reasonable conclusion. We cannot expect to 
make a unilateral concession — on so grave a 
question that must be on a mutual basis. 

On behalf of Mrs. Kissinger and myself 
and my colleagues, let me thank you for the 
characteristically warm reception that we 
have received here in a country that based its 
views on the predominance of objective fac- 
tors. Those of us who come from an earlier 
stage of ideological development can perhaps 
say a personal word: When we come to 
Moscow we no longer feel that we are among 
foreigners. We have been colleagues now 
through many difficult negotiations through 
many complicated periods in pursuit of a 
common objective. We are committed to im- 
proving relations between our two countries, 
to strengthen detente and thereby enhance 
peace for all the peoples of the world. 

We speak with great frankness, and there 
are many occasions when we do not agree. 
But we are always animated by the desire to 
narrow our differences and to achieve our 
common purposes. 

As we look back at the past two years, 


Department of State Bulletin 

there have been, of course, a few disappoint- 
ments. But the main trend has been ex- 
tremely positive. We have agreed on major 
principles, and we have achieved many spe- 
cific agreements. We exchange ideas on all 
great problems with great frankness and 
generally with very positive results. 

When I came to Washington, the Soviet 
Union was considered a permanent adver- 
sary. Today one can already say that the 
possibilities of war between our two coun- 
tries have been reduced to negligible pro- 
portions and the tensions which were so 
characteristic of earlier periods have largely 
been stemmed. Now our objective is to give 
this condition a permanent and irreversible 
basis. Through all the ups and downs in 
our relations, through a change in adminis- 
tration, it has been a firm and continuing 
principle of American policy that the United 
States and Soviet Union have a very special 
responsibility for preserving the peace in 
the world and for contributing to the positive 
aspirations of mankind. This positive peace 
responsibility will be fostered with great 
energy by our administration. It is in this 
spirit that we conducted our first talks this 
morning with the General Secretary. 

I fully agree with the evaluation of the 
Foreign Minister that the talks this morning 
were useful. It was a very good beginning. I 
agree with him further that with great 
efforts on both sides we can mark very con- 
siderable progress in the months ahead. I 
can pledge these efforts from the American 
side. We note the comments made by the 
Foreign Minister with respect to the Soviet 
side, so we realize the potentialities that are 
before us. This process of detente which we 
started and are now continuing will mark a 
historic change in people and a major ad- 
vance toward a lasting peace. It is in this 
spirit that we will conduct not only these 
discussions but our entire relations. 

It is in this spirit that I would like to 
propose a toast to the Foreign Minister, to 
the expansion of relations between the Soviet 
Union and the United States, for the friend- 
ship between Soviet and American people, 
and to permanent peace. 

Communique on the Visit to the U.S.S.R.- 

As previously agreed, Henry A. Kissinger, Secre- 
tary of State of the United States of America and 
Assistant to the President for National Security Af- 
fairs, visited Moscow from October 23 to October 27. 

He had discussions with Leonid I. Brezhnev, Gen- 
eral Secretary of the Central Committee of the Com- 
munist Party of the Soviet Union, and Andrei A. 
Gromyko, Member of the Politburo of the Central 
Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet 
Union, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. 

Taking part in the discussions on the Soviet side 
were : 

The Ambassador of the USSR in the United States, 
A. F. Dobrynin 

Assistant to the General Secretary of the Central 
Committee of the Communist Party of the So- 
viet Union, A. M. Alexandrov 

Member of the Collegium of the Ministry of For- 
eign Affairs of the USSR, G. M. Korniyenko. 

On the American side: 

The Ambassador of the United States to the 
USSR, Walter J. Stoessel, Jr. 

Officials of the Department of State: Helmut Son- 
nenfeldt, Arthur A. Hartman, Alfred A. Ather- 
ton, William G. Hyland, Winston Lord; and Jan 
M. Lodal and A. Denis Clift of the staff of the 
National Security Council. 

In the course of the discussions, a thorough ex- 
change of views took place on a wide range of is- 
sues concerning American-Soviet relations and on a 
number of current international problems. 

The two sides noted with satisfaction that the rela- 
tions between the USA and the USSR continue to 
improve steadily, in accordance with the course pre- 
viously established. 

In this connection they again emphasized the fun- 
damental importance of the decisions taken as a re- 
sult of the U.S. -Soviet summit meetings, and ex- 
pressed their mutual determination to continue to 
make energetic efforts to ensure uninterrupted prog- 
ress in U.S. -Soviet relations. 

Particular attention was given to the problem of 
the further limitation of strategic arms. In their con- 
sideration of this problem the two sides were guided 
by the fundamental understanding with regard to de- 
veloping a new long-term agreement which is to fol- 
low the Interim Agreement of May 26, 1972. Useful 
exchanges took place on the details involved in such 
an agreement. Discussions on these matters will con- 

The two sides noted that as a whole ties in various 
spheres between the USA and the USSR have been 


2 Issued at Moscow Oct. 27 (text from press re- 
lease 442). 

November 25, 1974 


developing successfully. They agreed that full im- 
plementation of the agreements already concluded 
will open favorable prospects for further expansion 
of mutually beneficial cooperation between the two 

The two sides continue to be concerned over the 
situation in the Middle East. They reaffirmed their 
determination to make efforts to find solutions to 
the key questions of a just and lasting settlement in 
the area. The two sides agreed that the early recon- 
vening of the Geneva Conference should play a use- 
ful role in finding such a settlement. 

Noting the progress achieved by the Conference 
on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the two 
sides will continue to work actively for its success- 
ful conclusion at an early date. They also believe that 
it is possible to achieve progress at the talks on mu- 
tual reduction of armed forces and armaments in 
Central Europe. 

The exchange of views was marked by a business- 
like and constructive spirit. Both sides consider it 
highly useful. In this connection they reaffirmed the 
positive value of the established practice of regular 
consultations between the two countries. Both sides 
emphasized the special importance of summit meet- 
ings for a constructive development of relations be- 
tween the USA and the USSR. As has been an- 
nounced, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United 
States, and L. I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the 
Central Committee of the CPSU, will hold a work- 
ing meeting in the vicinity of Vladivostok at the end 
of November 1974. 


Remarks by Secretary Kissinger 
Upon Arrival, New Delhi, October 27 

Press release 443 dated October 27 

Mr. Foreign Minister: This is my first 
visit to India as Secretary of State, but I 
have been here on several previous occasions 
to exchange ideas and to meet old friends. 
In the past year or so relations between In- 
dia and the United States have improved 
considerably. The two greatest democracies 
in the world have rediscovered their common 
purposes and have exchanged ideas on an 
ever-increasing range of topics. It is to con- 
tinue this exchange that I have gratefully 
accepted the invitation of the Indian Govern- 
ment, the Foreign Minister, to visit the sub- 

I look forward very much to my talks with 
Prime Minister Gandhi and with all the other 

Ministers who have been kind enough to 
make time on their schedules. I come here at 
a time of great difficulties in the world but 
also of great opportunity. There is the pos- 
sibility of building a new international sys- 
tem based on peace and justice and coopera- 
tion, values to which both of our countries 
have long since been dedicated. 

I appreciate the warmth of your reception. 
I look forward to my talks ; and I know that 
when I leave, the already strong relation- 
ships between India and the United States 
will, hopefully, be further strengthened. 

Thank you. 

Dinner Hosted by Y. B. Chavan, Minister of 
External Affairs, New Delhi, October 27 

Press release 444 dated October 27 

Toast by Foreign Minister Chavan 

On behalf of the Government of India, I 
have great pleasure to extend a warm and 
cordial welcome to you and Mrs. Kissinger. I 
enjoyed meeting you in Washington a few 
weeks ago, and I am indeed happy that you 
were able to pay us an official visit and pro- 
vide an opportunity to exchange views on 
important international problems and mat- 
ters of bilateral interest. 

India and the United States of America 
are both democratic countries with well- 
established traditions of representative gov- 
ernment, social responsibility, and individual 
freedom. We have admired this creative ge- 
nius of the American people and their con- 
tribution to human progress. 

We are confident that our two countries 
can work together to create a better world in 
which men and women can realize their po- 
tential both as individuals and useful citizens 
and contribute to the development of society 
and welfare of mankind. It is also a unique 
feature of our relations that, in spite of occa- 
sional differences, we have been able to main- I 
tain dialogue and contact at all times and at 
all levels. This provides a good basis for our 
working together in the future also to pro- 
mote mutual understanding, international 
peace, and progress. 

Mr. Secretary, since your last visit to New 


Department of State Bulletin 

Delhi, far-reaching changes have taken place 
in this region. Out of the agony of the sub- 
continent, a new nation was born, underlin- 
ing a historical truth that popular aspirations 
cannot be long suppressed. On the basis of 
the realities of the situation, we have been 
trying to build a new structure of peace, 
friendship, and cooperation in this region. 

We note that your own country shares this 
view and has supported the Simla process of 
bilateral and peaceful normalization and rec- 
onciliation without external interference. It 
need hardly be stressed that peace is partic- 
ularly essential to us and other countries of 
the region to meet the challenge of economic 
and social growth. We are fully conscious of 
our responsibilities and of the need to build 
friendship and cooperation with our "neigh- 
bors. We have achieved this objective in our 
relations with most of our neighbors and 
hope to do the same with the remaining one 
or two governments. 

Indo-American relations have improved in 
the last year or two. Although it would be 
idle to pretend that there are no differences 
between us, we both recognize the need for 
building up a mature and constructive rela- 
tionship on the basis of equality, mutual re- 
spect, and mutual benefit. There is potential 
for strengthening our relations, and we look 
forward to our discussions with you on ways 
and means of furthering Indo-American un- 

In today's world, no country can remain 
isolated or become totally self-sufficient in all 
its requirements. We are interested in pro- 
moting cooperation between India and Amer- 
ica in various fields including trade, science, 
technology, education, and culture. I am con- 
fident that our discussions will enable us not 
only to remove past misunderstandings but 
also generate momentum for a better, more 
mature and realistic relationship in the 
months and years ahead. 

Mr. Secretary, you are not a newcomer to 
India. However, since this is Mrs. Kissinger's 
first visit to our country, may I wish her a 
cordial welcome and a most pleasant stay 
here. In drawing up your program, we have 
taken particular care to insure that you, 
Mrs. Kissinger, have some opportunity to see 

a bit of India. We hope you will come again 
and see more of our country. And we hope 
you, Mr. Secretary, would also come with her. 

Toast by Secretary Kissinger 

Mr. Foreign Minister, distinguished guests, 
ladies and gentlemen : I am delighted to have 
been able to accept the invitation to visit 
your great country in order to renew long- 
standing friendships, to remove old misun- 
derstandings, and to build a new and mature 
relationship. This trip has been prepared 
over a considerable period of time by your 
distinguished predecessor and by the two in- 
defatigable Ambassadors that represent our 
two countries. 

As for our Ambassador, I would like to 
point out to you that those of his dispatches 
that appear in the New York Times are only 
the tip of the iceberg of what I have to con- 
tend with. And, indeed, what saves me from 
more exposure in the New York Times is the 
limitation of space which is inevitably im- 
posed by a daily newspaper. But suffice it to 
say that our Ambassador to New Delhi never 
lets me forget for a moment how important 
our relationship is and he has worked with 
great dedication, sharing my own conviction 
and President Ford's conviction of the impor- 
tance that we attach to close ties with India. 
As for your Ambassador, my friend Tikki 
Kaul [Triloki Nath Kaul], he checks on me 
periodically — but I would like to request of 
you, Mr. Foreign Minister, that you change 
his instructions so that he needs to call on me 
only twice a week to make sure that I am not 
tilting the wrong way. I would like to pay 
tribute to his friendship and to his dedica- 

In the United States in recent years, just 
as has India, we have had to make many ad- 
justments to new conditions. We are inter- 
ested in building a worldwide structure of 
peace in which all the nations feel they have 
a sense of participation, and a structure of 
peace which transcends the antagonisms of 
the period of the cold war and tries to draw 
on the dedication of all parts of the world. 

In this structure of peace, the structure of 
peace in the subcontinent to which the For- 
eign Minister has referred plays, of course, 




November 25, 1974 



I 1 


a crucial role. The United States strongly 
supports the Simla process. The United States 
feels that the development of peace in the 
subcontinent, free of outside interference, on 
the basis of equality and negotiation, is an 
essential precondition to peace in the world. 
And our relationship prospers to the precise 
extent that this process has taken root and 
has continued. 

The Foreign Minister pointed out India's 
desire to extend cooperative relationships 
with the United States in many fields. We 
reciprocate this feeling, and in the work 
which we will do here, in the institutions 
which we plan to create, we see but the be- 
ginning of further cooperative ventures to 
the joint benefit of both of our nations, of 
the peoples of the subcontinent, and all of 
the people in the world. 

I look forward very much to my talks here 
with the Prime Minister, with the Foreign 
Minister, and with his colleagues. I want 
you to know that I come here with good will 
to contribute to the building of a strong rela- 
tionship between two great democracies shar- 
ing many similar ideals — two democracies, 
which, whatever their occasional differences 
on particular issues, have a common interest 
in a peaceful world, in a developing world, 
and in a cooperative world. It is with this at- 
titude that my colleagues and I will conduct 
our talks. It is in this spirit that I would like 
to propose a toast to the Foreign Minister 
and to friendship between the Indian and 
American people. 

Dinner Hosted by Secretary Kissinger, 
New Delhi, October 28 

Pre98 release 448 dated October 29 

Toast by Secretary Kissinger 

Distinguished guests : Let me take this op- 
portunity to welcome you at this elegant resi- 
dence of our Ambassador, which reminds me 
of the house he lived in as a professor in 

I would like to take this opportunity to 
thank all our Indian friends for the remarka- 
ble hospitality that has been shown to us, 

for the warmth with which Nancy and I have 
been received here, and for the friendship and 
cordiality of our talks, which cannot be re- 
flected in official communiques. 

The Indian philosopher Kautilya listed the 
qualifications for a minister with the subtle 
ability for which Indians are known. These 
are the qualities of a minister as described 
by Kautilya: "native born" — that leaves me 
out already — "of high family; influential; 
well trained in the arts; possessed of fore- 
sight; wise; of strong memory; bold; elo- 
quent; skillful; intelligent; possessed of en- 
thusiasm, dignity, and endurance; pure in 
character ; affable ; firm in loyal devotion ; en- 
dowed with excellent conduct, strength, 
health, bravery" and a few other things like 
that — "these are the qualifications of a min- 
isterial officer." My staff will pass among you 
in a few minutes and certify that, except for 
the first quality, all of these are possessed by 
the Secretary of State. They will all say a 
few other things about the Secretary of State 
which I'd rather not hear. [Laughter.] 

We have spent a very fruitful day today, 
Mr. Foreign Minister. We have had very good 
talks, and we have formed the Indo-American 
Commission, which I am confident will per- 
form a significant service in the fields for 
which it has been designed. 

But I believe that the real significance of 
this occasion is that we talked to each other 
for the first time in a long while free of com- 
plexes. We now understand that when we 
deal with each other the United States does 
not do favors to India but deals with India 
on the basis of a common interest. And we are 
not here to seek moral approbation from In- 
dia, because we now realize that what ties us 
together is a common perception of the kind 
of world in which both of us can be secure 
and both of us can prosper. 

These intangible qualities, I believe, will be 
even more important than the substantive re- 
sults that have become apparent today or that 
will be reflected in the communique. The ex- 
changes which I have had the pleasure of 
conducting with the Foreign Minister and 
the extended talks with the Prime Minister 
will be continued in the months ahead. We 


Department of State Bulletin 

will start the Subcommissions very soon. 

We all look forward to the visit of the 
Foreign Minister — and we will arrange as 
relaxed and reflective a schedule for him as 
he has for me. So let me take this occasion to 
express the appreciation of myself and all 
of my colleagues for the manner in which 
we've been received, for the spirit that has 
animated our talks ; to express the confidence 
that what we have started in these talks will 
be on a mature and enduring basis; and to 
look forward to renewing our acquaintance 
very soon in the United States. I'd like to 
propose a toast to the Foreign Minister. 

Toast by Foreign Minister Chavan 

Mr. Secretary of State, Mrs. Kissinger, 
Ambassador and Mrs. Moynihan : On my be- 
half and on behalf of my colleagues in the 
Government of India, let me take this oppor- 
tunity to thank the Secretary of State and 
Mrs. Kissinger for giving this opportunity 
again of reconsidering the future of the 
commissions in a more useful manner. 

Dr. Kissinger has been speaking of the 
very useful talks that we have had during 
the course of the day. I think he is right that 
these discussions we have had today were 
very frank and free of any conflicts, as he 
put it. I am sure it has helped us now and 
will continue to help us in the future to un- 
derstand each other better. Naturally one 
can't say that there won't be difference in 
approaches, but at least we will try to under- 
stand why we prefer the way we do ; but our 
emphasis will be to agree more and more on 
basic issues so that the understanding will 
be on a firmer foundation. 

We have agreed today to sign an agree- 
ment for establishing a Joint Commission and 
to deal with different aspects of administra- 
tion, economic cooperation, cultural coopera- 
tion, educational cooperation, and I think 
that will help us to come constructively to- 
gether to win the mature relationship that 
we have envisaged. That is much more impor- 

I think that Dr. Kissinger's visit certainly 
will prove to be a very important step in re- 

discovering, if I may quote him again, the 
common purposes in the approaches of United 
States and India. And that is why I consider 
this visit a very important visit which is 
sort of a nice landmark in our relationship. I 
can assure you that we will continue the same 
dialogue in the same spirit with a view to 
achieve what we both of us desire. I must 
request you gentlemen to raise your glasses 
and offer a toast to Dr. Kissinger and Mrs. 

News Conference by Secretary Kissinger, 
New Delhi, October 30 

Press release 451 dated October 30 

Kewal Singh, Secretary in the Ministry 
for External Affairs: Ladies and gentlemen, 
we have as you see this morning with us 
Dr. Henry Kissinger, the Secretary of State 
for the United States of America, and per- 
haps the most eminent personality in the 
international diplomacy today. At one time 
with his very heavy schedule it seemed al- 
most impossible if he'd be able to meet you, 
which he very much wanted to do. But as 
you all know, Dr. Kissinger has a flair for 
resolving the impossible. We are happy that 
he is here with us. The conference is exactly 
30 minutes. After he has said a few words, 
you are welcome to shoot your questions. 
Before asking the questions, please kindly 
announce your name and the agency or the 
press you represent. 

Thank you. 

Secretary Kissinger: I want to express 
my appreciation and that of my colleagues 
for the extraordinarily warm receptions that 
we have received here. The talks were cor- 
dial, frank, and extremely useful. I think we 
have succeeded jointly in establishing a ma- 
ture and good basis for the future relation- 
ship between India and the United States, 
and we also had enough opportunity to re- 
view world developments. 

So, I believe we have turned a new page. 
On the part of the United States — my im- 
pression is, also on that of India — we will 
work with dedication and seriousness to give 
it a meaning that will be of benefit to both 


November 25, 1974 








of our peoples as well as to the peoples of 
the world. 

Now I'll be glad to take your questions. 

Q. How successful do you think your visit 
has been? 

Secretary Kissinger: India and the United 
States are both major countries which are 
located of course in different parts of the 
world and do not necessarily have a complete 
identity of views on every subject. But in 
terms of the purpose that we set ourselves, 
which was to establish a basis for a new and 
mature relationship, I consider the trip com- 
pletely successful. 

Q. Is there any rethinking on the part of 
the U.S.A. on lifting or relaxing the em- 
bargo on supply of lethal weapons to Paki- 
stan in light of Mr. Bhutto's threat that 
Pakistan would go nuclear if the U.S.A. did 
not resume arms supply? 

Secretary Kissinger: I have had occasion 
to say in several meetings that I do not think 
it is appropriate for me to make statements 
that affect other countries of the subcon- 
tinent while I'm in New Delhi. Our current 
policy is well known. We have already stated 
that we would not participate in an arms 
race on the subcontinent. Beyond that I do 
not think it would be appropriate for me to 
go while I'm here. 

Q. The two points which have emerged 
from the joint communique published today 
are that you made no direct reference to 
economic aid to India in your talks with C. 
Subramaniam [Minister of Finance] and 
that the question of the supply of food to 
India will be in accordance with the decision 
of the forthcoming World Food Conference 
at Rome. Now, I just wanted to know 
whether you in the course of your talks 
threw any hint about the possibility of the 
resumption of economic aid to India and 
food supplies on a bilateral basis irrespec- 
tive of the decisions that might be taken at 
the World Food Conference in Rome? 

Secretary Kissinger: Let me deal with 
this question in two parts. I think one of 


the aspects of the relationship that is de- 
veloping now between India and the United 
States is that we can talk to each other free 
of complexes. One of the complexes that has 
affected our relationship in the past has been 
who was asking whom for what, and second- 
ly, whether the United States was doing 
anybody a favor by extending aid or other 
forms of cooperation. 

Let me say first of all that when the 
United States undertakes a certain measure 
with respect to India, or any other country, 
it does so in its own interest as well as in 
the interests of the other country. Unless 
there is a joint interest there is no firm basis 
for common action. We have an interest in 
a stable, growing subcontinent; and there- 
fore, when we discuss aid with India, it is 
not in the context of India asking us for a 
special favor but of defining joint objectives. 

Now, the Commission that has been set up 
will provide an opportunity for discussing 
common objectives, in a realistic frame- 
work; and within that framework I am cer- 
tain that the question of what measures can 
be taken by the United States to assist in 
the development of India in our joint in- 
terest will undoubtedly come up. In that con- 
text it also came up informally in some of 
the talks that were conducted. 

With respect to the food problem, there 
are again two aspects. One is those measures 
which the United States takes as a country 
individually and those measures which it 
proposes that the world will take on a multi- 
lateral basis. At the World Food Conference, 
I intend to put before the other nations the 
entire U.S. approach to the world food prob- 
lem — those steps that are taken on a na- 
tional basis as well as those steps which are 
taken on a multilateral basis. Those steps 
which the United States is prepared to take 
on a national basis obviously do not have to 
wait for the decisions of the World Food 
Conference; and those steps will include, as 
far as the United States is concerned, a pro- 
gram of food assistance to India. 

Q. / want to ask you a fundamental ques- 
tion: The U.S.A. and India are the two 
biggest democracies in the world. Naturally, 

Department of State Bulletin 

it tvas expected there should have been best 
cooperation between the tivo. But instead 
it happened to the contrary. I am not going 
into the reasons, but what surprises me is 
that your country has made up with the 
two biggest Communist countries of the 
world and also supported some of the dicta- 
torial countries. On our side, too, we had 
come closer with Socialist Communist coun- 
tries headed by the U.S.S.R. Does it mean 
that the democratic countries of the world 
had no real faith in the principle of democ- 
racy? I am aware that you can reply only 
for your side. Does it also mean that the 
U.S.A., the staunch believer in the democ- 
racy, does not want democracy to flourish 
in other parts of the world? 

Secretary Kissinger: This is a question 
I hear occasionally at our press conferences 
in America, though stated with less elo- 
quence. The United States has two cate- 
gories of concerns in the world. One has to 
do with the problem of peace, security, and 
the avoidance of a holocaust. The second is 
influenced by the basic orientation of our 
values, in which of course our preference 
for democratic institutions plays a very im- 
portant role. 

Now, under ideal circumstances, those two 
strands of our policy should operate side by 
side. However, there are many circum- 
stances in which a choice may have to be 
made. For example, the question of the 
prevention of nuclear war cannot wait for 
the emergence of democratic institutions in 
the Soviet Union, because when you have 
two countries capable of destroying human 
life you have a number of practical prob- 
lems that arise. Similarly, it was our view 
that it was impossible to think of a peaceful 
international environment without an ex- 
change of views and regular contacts be- 
tween the United States and the People's 
Republic of China. This does not mean 
approbation of the domestic structure of 
these governments, but it does mean that 
there are certain practical problems that re- 
quire solutions of an overwhelming impor- 

In the area where we believe we have a